Texas A&M International University Texas A&M International University

Research Information Online Research Information Online

Theses and Dissertations

6-7-2017

Civil Liberties V. National Security: A Study of Hispanic Students' Civil Liberties V. National Security: A Study of Hispanic Students'

Public Opinion Public Opinion

Carlos Alvarez

Follow this and additional works at: https://rio.tamiu.edu/etds

Recommended Citation Recommended Citation Alvarez, Carlos, "Civil Liberties V. National Security: A Study of Hispanic Students' Public Opinion" (2017). Theses and Dissertations. 99. https://rio.tamiu.edu/etds/99

This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by Research Information Online. It has been accepted for inclusion in Theses and Dissertations by an authorized administrator of Research Information Online. For more information, please contact benjamin.rawlins@tamiu.edu, eva.hernandez@tamiu.edu, jhatcher@tamiu.edu, rhinojosa@tamiu.edu.

CIVIL LIBERTIES V. NATIONAL SECURITY:

A STUDY OF HISPANIC STUDENTS’ PUBLIC OPINION

A Thesis

by

CARLOS ALVAREZ

Submitted to Texas A&M International University

in partial fulfillment of the requirements

for the degree of

MASTER OF SCIENCE

December 2016

Major subject: Criminal Justice

Civil Liberties v. National Security: A Study of Hispanic Students' Public Opinion

Copyright 2016 Carlos Alvarez

CIVIL LIBERTIES V. NATIONAL SECURITY:

A STUDY OF HISPANIC STUDENTS’ PUBLIC OPINION

A Thesis

by

CARLOS ALVAREZ

Submitted to Texas A&M International University

in partial fulfillment of the requirements

for the degree of

MASTER OF SCIENCE

Approved as to style and content by:

Chair of Committee, Frances Bernat

Committee Members, Judith Warner

Heriberto Urby, Jr.

Marcus Antonius Ynalvez

Head of Department, John Kilburn

December 2016

Major subject: Criminal Justice

iv

DEDICATION

I would like to dedicate this thesis to four great pillars of my education, firstly, to Dr.

Frances Bernat, who is and has been my academic mentor since my undergraduate years, and

primary adviser during my Presidency of the National Criminal Justice Honor Society at

TAMIU. Also, to Dr. Heriberto Urby, Jr., Dr. Judith Warner, and Dr. Marcus Antonius Ynalvez,

who supported me in my efforts to continue this thesis. To my family, friends, and Masonic

brothers from Laredo Lodge 547, who were there for me to provide friendship and brotherly

love. Thank you all and most importantly, thanks to the Grand Architect of the Universe; for he

is LIGHT.

i

ABSTRACT

Civil Liberties V. National Security:

A Study of Hispanic Students’ Public Opinion (December 2016)

Carlos Alvarez, B.S., Texas A&M International University:

Chair of Committee: Dr. Frances Bernat

The purpose of this study is to understand Hispanic students’ public opinion on whether they

want to protect their civil liberties or prefer more national security to respond to terrorism. I sent

an electronic survey to 900 students attending a South Texas university with 193 completed

surveys returned. I replicated eight individual counter-terrorism measures from Welch (2015),

and derived a component dependent variable using a data reduction technique called principal

component analysis. In this study, my independent variables are measures of nationalism,

ethnocentrism, and political affiliation. Political affiliation was significantly related to the

support for counter-terrorism policy, and the gender of respondents had a significant main effect.

Furthermore, females did not support counter-terrorism policies if it meant subjugating their civil

liberties. Male respondents supported counter-terrorism policy for more national security, despite

the loss of some civil liberties. My study contributes to the fundamental understanding of the role

of gender in the support for counter-terrorism policies.

ii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I would like to acknowledge and thank those morning coffee meetings at Starbucks, with

my chair, Dr. Frances Bernat, who gave me clear guidance, time, and high academic expectation

on every turn of this thesis paper. Dr. Bernat is my mentor, and the Ponte Vecchio for my

knowledge and wisdom. Bridges deteriorate over-time, but there are bridges like Ponte Vecchio

that sustain through rough and superfluous times. I would also like to thank Dr. Heriberto Urby,

Jr., Dr. Judith Warner and Dr. Marcus Antonius Ynalvez (Obi-Wan), who provided their support

despite a busy summer. My family and friends, who almost always provided me coffee during

those sleepless nights at the Killam library. My brothers from the Ancient Order of Freemasons,

and Bro. Thomas Gregory Moore, who offered me conversation on some of his literary work.

Ultimately, I thank God, who without his light, in darkness I would still be. So help me God, and

keep me steadfast.

iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

ABSTRACT ..................................................................................................................................... i

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ............................................................................................................ ii

TABLE OF CONTENTS ............................................................................................................... iii

LIST OF TABLES ......................................................................................................................... vi

LIST OF FIGURES ...................................................................................................................... vii

CHAPTER

I. INTRODUCTION ...............................................................................................................1

1.1 Public Support For National Security over Civil Liberties ............................................2

1.2 The Current Study ..........................................................................................................4

1.2.1 Laredo, Texas .....................................................................................................5

1.2.1.1 Nationalism ..................................................................................................5

1.2.1.2 Ethnocentrism ............................................................................................6

1.2.1.3 Political Affiliation ....................................................................................6

1.2.2 Summary ............................................................................................................7

II. LITERATURE REVIEW ....................................................................................................8

2.1 Public Support and The War on Terror ..........................................................................9

2.1.1 Rallying Around the Flag Effect ......................................................................10

2.1.2 Mexican American Support for Counter-terrorism Laws and Policy ..............12

2.2 Civil Liberties ..............................................................................................................13

2.3 Political Affiliation, Nationalism, and Ethnocentrism and Public Opinion ................15

2.3.1 Political Affiliation ..........................................................................................16

2.3.2 Nationalism ......................................................................................................17

2.3.3 Ethnocentrism ..................................................................................................18

2.4 Counter-Terrorism Policy and the Gender Gap ...........................................................20

2.5 Summary ......................................................................................................................22

III. METHODOLOGY ............................................................................................................24

3.1 Theoretical Model ........................................................................................................25

3.2 Study Location .............................................................................................................26

3.3 Data Collection ............................................................................................................27

iv

3.3.1 Respondents .....................................................................................................27

3.3.2 Survey Administration .....................................................................................27

3.4 Measurements ..............................................................................................................27

3.4.1 Component Dependent Variable ......................................................................27

3.4.2 Independent Variables .....................................................................................28

3.3.2.1 Nationalism ..............................................................................................28

3.3.2.2 Ethnocentrism ..........................................................................................29

3.3.2.3 Political Affiliation ..................................................................................29

3.4.3 Demographic Characteristics ...........................................................................30

3.3.3.1 Race and Ethnicity ...................................................................................30

3.3.3.2 Gender ......................................................................................................30

3.3.3.3 Age ...........................................................................................................31

3.3.3.4 Annual Household Income ......................................................................31

3.3.3.5 Educational Attainment Level .................................................................32

3.5 Analytical Strategy.......................................................................................................33

3.3.4.1 Principal Component Analysis ................................................................33

3.3.4.2 Ordinary Least-Squares Regression .........................................................35

IV. FINDINGS .........................................................................................................................37

4.1.1 Measure of Central Tendency for Counter-Terrorism Support .......................37

4.1.2 Nationalism ......................................................................................................39

4.1.3 Ethnocentrism ..................................................................................................39

4.1.4 Political Affiliation ..........................................................................................40

4.2 Regression Results .......................................................................................................41

4.2.1 Model 1 ............................................................................................................41

4.2.2 Model 2 ............................................................................................................44

4.2.3 Model 3 ............................................................................................................44

4.2.4 Model 4 ............................................................................................................45

4.3 Gender v. Civil Liberties..............................................................................................45

4.4 Summary ......................................................................................................................47

V. DISCUSSION ....................................................................................................................49

5.1.1 Public Opinion and Support for Counter-Terrorism Policy .............................49

5.1.2 Nationalism, Political Affiliation, and Ethnocentrism .....................................51

v

5.1.3 Gender Gap for Counter-Terrorism Policy ......................................................53

5.2 Future Directions .........................................................................................................55

5.3 Conclusion ...................................................................................................................56

REFERENCES ..............................................................................................................................58

APPENDICES

A. Survey ....................................................................................................................64

B. VITA ......................................................................................................................68

vi

LIST OF TABLES

Page

Table1. Welch - Punitive Support for Specific Anti-Terror Policy Proposals ...............................4

Table 2. Demographic Characteristics ...........................................................................................32

Table 3. Dependent Variable Correlation Matrix ..........................................................................35

Table 4. Support for Counter-Terrorism Policy .............................................................................38

Table 5. Nationalism and Ethnocentrism Frequency and Percentages ..........................................40

Table 6. Political Affiliation Frequency and Percentages ............................................................41

Table 7. Ordinary Least-Square Regression on Support for Counter-Terrorism...........................43

Table 8. Cross Tabulation of Gender and Counter-Terrorism Policies ........................................47

vii

LIST OF FIGURES

Page

Figure 1: Theoretical Model ................................................................................................................... 26

1

CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION

Contemporary society is concerned with terrorism and with what the government does to

thwart it. To determine what the public thinks about governmental actions, public opinion polls

are conducted in the United States. American public opinion has been an important benchmark

of support or non-support of governmental actions and policy during tragic periods, such as the

terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001, the Cuban missile crisis, and the Vietnam War (Davis &

Silver, 2004; Hetherington & Nelson, 2003; Hurwitz & Peffley, 1987; Krysan, 2000). Since

September 11, 2001 (9/11), the U.S. government began to use heightened security counter-

terrorism measures that resulted in an increased surveillance and oversight of the public by

federal agencies (Davis & Silver, 2004; Hetherington & Nelson, 2003). Initially, the American

public overwhelmingly supported governmental actions and policy, which weighed in favor of

increased national security over civil liberties; but public opinion ebbs and flows and changes

over time. In general, public opinion favoring heightened counter-terrorism actions and policy

occurs when there is a strong fear of terrorists (Welch, 2015; Hetherington & Nelson, 2003.).

When there is increased fear, the public is likely to favor increased U.S. security measures and

reduced civil liberties (Klarevas, 2002). Research is needed to understand the ebb and flow and

to determine what (other) factors can help explain public opinion among a growing ethnic

minority population, Mexican Americans.

____________

This thesis follows the style of Race and Justice.

2

Public support for national security over civil liberties

Domestically, the United States has attempted to thwart terrorism by increased border

and civilian oversight through various measures authorized under the USA Patriot Act, originally

referred as “Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to

Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act,” (Kam & Kinder, 2007; Whitehead & Aden, 2002). Such

measures have been criticized because while there was a public perception of being safe and

secure, the perceived security was at the expense of civil liberties (Davis & Silver, 2004;

Hetherington & Nelson, 2003). Public support for governmental actions and policy, which limit

civil liberties, have been found to be related to several factors (Davis & Silver, 2004;

Hetherington & Nelson, 2003). In particular, public support for the U.S. government’s war on

terror and counter-terrorism measures is related to the public’s sense of nationalism,

ethnocentrism, and political affiliation. (Hetherington & Nelson, 2003; Klarevas, 2002; Davis &

Silver, 2004).

Welch (2015) conducted a national survey to see if public attitudes supporting punitive

counter-terrorism measures were influenced by Middle Eastern stereotypes. The primary

hypothesis was: “those who stereotype terrorists as Middle Easterners are more likely to support

harsh terror prevention and punishment tactics” (Welch, 2015, p.9). Welch (2015) tested

whether someone who was depicted as being from the Middle East increased the likelihood of

respondents’ support for punitive anti-terror policy. Welch conducted a telephonic survey of a

sample of adults in Tallahassee, Florida. The survey was conducted starting November 2006 to

January 2007. Welch’s sample size was 425 respondents with an average respondent age of 37

years. The majority of respondents in Welch’s study were white (83 percent) and female (51

3

percent). The other respondents included 12 percent African American, 6 percent Middle

Eastern descent and 14 percent Hispanic persons.

Welch used an 8-item index to measure “anti-terror punitiveness” to distinguish the

amount of support for punitive counter-terrorism policy based on a minority threat perception.

Welch’s (2015: 11) 8-item index included counter-terrorism policies, which were:

1. Holding prisoners indefinitely without being charged for an offense,

2. Detaining terrorist suspects without notifying their families or embassies,

3. Using stressful interrogation techniques to get confessions,

4. Holding trials that do not involve Bill of Rights protections,

5. Executing more terrorists,

6. Wiretapping phones in the United States,

7. Intercepting emails and other personal electronic information, and

8. Conducting searches and seizures of individuals, and their belongings without proper

warrants.

These eight measures were then reduced into a component (dependent) variable by using

principal component analysis (PCA), which is a data reduction technique in the area of exploratory

factor analysis (Field, 2013). After PCA, the new component variable was labeled “anti-terror

punitiveness.” The mean scores, and factor loadings were detailed for each policy measure. Table

1 is based on Welch’s (2015) mean scores of punitiveness or harshness for the eight anti-terror

policies. Based on this table, executing terrorists was the most punitive policy with a mean score

of 6.31, and warrantless searches the least with a score of 3.81.

Welch found that if the respondents were presented with Middle Eastern stereotypes they

were likely to support harsh anti-terror policies, such as executing more terrorists. Respondents

4

supported punitive anti-terror policies even if the policies meant reducing U.S. civil rights. The

stereotype Americans had based on the Middle Eastern Typification variable was found to

greatly influence the punitiveness of counter-terrorism policy (Welch, 2015).

Table 1. Welch -Punitive Support for Specific Anti-Terror Policy Proposals

Anti-Terror Punitiveness (0 - 10 scale, 10 - Most Punitive)

Mean

SD

Factor Loading

Holding prisoners indefinitely without being charged for an offense. 4.38 3.93 .742

Detaining terrorist suspects without notifying their families or

embassies.

4.73 3.87 .782

Using stressful interrogation techniques to get confessions. 5.11 3.73 .777

Holding trials that do not involve Bill of Rights protections. 4.71 3.89 .789

Executing more terrorists. 6.31 3.82 .600

Wiretapping phones in the United States. 5.07 3.88 .782

Intercepting emails and other personal electronic information. 5.31 3.85 .780

Conducting searches and seizures of individuals and their belongings

without proper warrants.

3.81 3.82 .769

Note. Adapted from Middle Eastern terrorist stereotypes and anti-terror policy support: The effect of perceived

minority threat, p.11, by K. Welch, 2015, Race and Justice.

According to Welch (2015), respondents’ public support of counter-terrorism policy

was influenced by the stereotypical terrorist affiliation of Middle Easterners, where individuals

of Middle Eastern descent were more likely to be associated to terrorist groups. The public

endorsement for counter-terrorism laws has resulted in the reduction of civil liberties for both,

Americans, and noncitizens. However, according to Welch (2015) the respondents were guided

by the independent variable, Middle Eastern Typification.

The Current Study

5

Laredo, Texas

The current study is a partial replication of Welch’s research. I used each of Welch’s

eight measures on counter-terrorism policies. I focused my investigation on the attitudes of

primarily Mexican American students in South Texas, located primarily in Laredo, Texas. There

are six border cities located in Texas: Brownsville, Del Rio, Eagle Pass, El Paso, McAllen, and

Laredo. These six border cities have one neighboring city nicknamed sister cities. The term

“sister city” is derived from the notion that a U.S. city has a direct border with a Mexican City,

thus Laredo’s sister city is Nuevo Laredo (Gilmer, Gurch, & Wang, 2001).

I am interested in assessing the degree to which Mexican Americans are willing to

subjugate their own civil rights for national security; an analysis of Hispanic attitudes is one that

scholars have yet to fully answer (Sanchez, 2006). I analyzed respondents’ level of support for

counter-terrorism laws and policy based on independent variables found in studies by

Hetherington and Nelson (2003), Davis and Silver (2004) and Kam and Kinder (2007). In

addition, I examined the impact of gender to determine if there was a gender gap in support for

counter-terrorism policy at the expense of one’s civil liberties; or if gender has a moderating role

between measures of nationalism, ethnocentrism, and political affiliation and support for anti-

terrorism measures. In this study, I looked into the potential reasons the public might be afraid

by focusing on the factors of national security and ethnocentrism, and on the respondents’

political affiliation.

Nationalism: Laredo has grown and has programs that honor Mexican and U.S ancestry,

merging both countries culturally and nationalistically. Laredo is now known as an

“entertainment center” for South Texans, due to city events such as the traditional Washington’s

Birthday Celebration. The holiday celebration is an event where state representatives and Laredo

6

public officials come together to honor George Washington’s Birthday through parades in the

Laredo downtown area (City of Laredo, 2016). Nationalism in Laredo has gotten stronger by the

years. According to Mendoza (2011) and Thompson (1991), Laredo has developed a sense of

nationalistic ideals, where war veterans are honored every 4th of July, and greeted with Mexican

customs, such as Mexican pan dulce (sweet bread). Mexican American veterans from Laredo

are praised and welcomed as heroes upon their return (Mendoza, 2011). On July 4, 2004, a local

artist sculpted a Medal of Honor monument for a local veteran, David Barkley Cantu, who

partook in World War 1. The development of Laredo, both culturally and economically, made

the city one of the fastest growing in the nation (Gilmer et al., 2001; Pinon, 1985).

Ethnocentrism: Ethnocentrism is shown in Laredo through Mexican-Texan culture, where

residents base their culture on a mixture of both sides of the border. Laredo is located along the

Mexico border and shares similar Mexican and ethnocentric values that are based on Mexican

American folkways (Mendoza, 2011). In addition, Laredo was primarily controlled by the

Spanish crown during the 1700s (Wood, 2004) and, consequently, both Spanish and Mexican

influences are prevalent in the city’s traditions and cultural events. However, as time progressed

and Texas became part of the US, residents adopted both cultures, Mexican and Texan.

Political Affiliation: Laredoans indicate that their political affiliation is mostly

Democratic; 77% are Democrat, 23% Republican, and 1% are Independent (Sperling, 2014).

According to Wood (2004), the strong affiliation of Democrats in Laredo can be traced back

when the city was heavily influenced by powerful families, who created a patron system. For

more than 80 years, the city was under a paternalistic and sometimes tyrannical political system.

After the patron system was abolished in 1978, a powerful political legacy of Democrats was left

behind (Wood, 2004).

7

Summary

Laredo, Texas has a long history, and background of Spanish influence that can be seen

today with the majority as Hispanic residents. The city population continues to grow, but the ethnic

identity endures as the city is a sister city of Nuevo Laredo, Mexico. Laredo also portrays a strong

sense of nationalism by having patriotic festivals that honors the US founding fathers and war

veterans alike. Politics in Laredo is resilient with more than two thirds of the population being

Democrat voters, and the rest Republican and Independent voters. The one thing that distinguishes

Laredo from the rest of the Texan cities is the collective efficacy of the Hispanic community, who

have mixed together Tex-Mex values that includes nationalistic, ethnocentric, and political tenets.

8

CHAPTER II

LITERATURE REVIEW

Understanding the nature and extent of the public’s views about significant events that

impact their lives is important if society is to progress. According to Ciuk (2016), values of a

society can change slowly over time, but when traumatic events happen then value shifts can

impact individuals’ view of the world and force people to reconsider their fundamental beliefs

and values. One such traumatic event was the terrorist attack in the United States on September

11, 2001. According to Klarevas (2002), military power and diplomatic presence in foreign “hot

spots” (countries most likely to develop terrorism) was a necessary means to subjugate terrorist

groups that exhibited extreme hatred towards Western countries such as the United States.

Accordingly, the privacy and civil liberties of Americans can become a trade-off for more

“security” from overseas terrorists (Kar, Crowsey, & Zale, 2013; Klarevas, 2002; Davis &

Silver; 2004).

What Americans think about the continued use of military power and force needs to be

assessed particularly if the impact is to be felt not only abroad in the “hot spot” areas but at home

with enhanced security protocol. To consider the impact of an event on the public’s value

system, Ciuk (2016) looked at three years of data on public values pre- and post-9/11; the years

1994, 2002 and 2005. Ciuk (2016) listed six public values: liberty, equality, economic security,

social order, morality, and patriotism. In general, Ciuk (2016) found that in 2003, the social order

value was more important than liberty; while the equality value remained fairly constant.

Overall, he found that women and racial minorities favored social order more than liberty, and

persons that are more educated favored liberty over both social order and economic order. Ciuk

(2016) also found that four years after 9/11, Americans’ values seemed to revert to the pre-9/11

period.

9

Some research has been completed on public support for the war on terror and the factors

that impact public opinion; ethnicity, gender, nationalism, political affiliation and ethnocentrism.

Each of these factors was considered in light of the ongoing public and national concerns about

terrorism, and the balance to be achieved between protecting Americans’ civil liberties and

maintaining the social order through counter-terrorism measures.

Public Support and the War on Terror

After the acts of terrorism on September 11, 2001, the United States quickly passed the

“Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and

Obstruct Terrorism Act,” and is better known as the Patriot Act (Gorham-Oscilowski & Jaeger,

2008). The Patriot Act was the fastest law to be enacted; it was passed by the House on October

24, 2001, and was cleared the following day by the Senate (Matz, 2008). On October 26, 2001,

just two days after it was first heard on the floor of Congress, President Bush signed the Patriot

Act into law. According to various political and legal scholars, the Patriot Act infringes upon

constitutional rights and changes the rules of procedure for the collection of evidence. The

Patriot Act undermines, for example, previous Supreme Court decisions such as Katz v. U.S.

(1967) which protects an individual’s right of privacy and requires the government to secure a

warrant before engaging in telephone eavesdropping (wiretapping), and U.S. v. Karo (1984)

which held that to physically monitor the location of an individual with a beeper device without a

warrant was unconstitutional (Kar et al., 2013; Domke, Graham, Coe, John, Coopman, 2006).

The provisions of the Patriot Act made changes to pre-existing laws by granting more

national security letters (NSL) to various federal agencies (Gorham-Oscilowski & Jaeger, 2008).

A national security letter is a form of provision that grants federal agencies, such as the Federal

10

Bureau of Investigation, access to various institutions’ financial and communication records, as

well as access to civilian communications (Gorham-Oscilowski & Jaeger, 2008).

Rallying around the Flag Effect.

American public opinion about 9/11 and governmental policies and action can be driven

by a sense of collective efficacy. Collective efficacy, in relation to the amount of public support

for counter-terrorism measures, is applied as the “public” belief that civil liberties should be

subjugated for more national security (Nelson et al., 1997). In their research, Hetherington and

Nelson (2003), and Davis and Silver (2004) studied the immediate effects 9/11 had on the

American public. Both studies suggest that the American public had a sense of pride and duty to

their country, a sense of patriotism and nationalism that strongly supported US efforts for the war

on terror (Hetherington & Nelson, 2003; Davis & Silver, 2004). Davis and Silver (2004) argued

that American public opinion is strongest during rallying events that unite the country in

moments of terror, such as the destruction of the twin towers on September 11, 2001. It is during

moments of desperation that no matter the political party, culture, or race, the American people

gain a sense of patriotism, or nationalism (Davis & Silver, 2004; Hetherington & Nelson, 2003;

Nelson et al. 1997).

To understand 9/11 and its effect on American public opinion, studies have been done on

both the war on terror and on counter-terrorism measures (Davis & Silver, 2004; Hetherington &

Nelson, 2003; Albrecht, 2015). Analyzing the public's view on counter-terrorism public policy is

relevant because it can underscore how strongly the public will support the commitment of

manpower and money for government actions, including war and restrictions on civil liberties

(Klarevas, 2002). Klarevas (2002) argued that societal support is like a domino, if the domino

tumbles or stands, the after-effect brings national policy change. According to Klarevas (2002),

11

public opinion and support is the essential domino of all U.S. military operations such as

Operation Desert Storm, and should lead and inform the decisions of the commander-in-chief.

Understanding the body of knowledge or factors that move public opinion is vital to

“maintaining” the driving force of action (Klarevas, 2002). Klarevas (2002) found national vital

interests and humanitarian objectives factors that gained public support for war in general.

However, although national vital interests and humanitarian objectives boost the support of the

American public, the survival of military operations are not necessarily dependent upon the

nations’ interest or humanitarian goals. Public support can still be secured if there is no national

vital interest or humanitarian objective.

Public support for statutory laws, such as the Patriot Act, might have been primarily

influenced by a rallying effect of the public after a destructive episode in the U.S., where citizens

were united by a common goal (Hetherington & Nelson, 2003; Klarevas, 2002). Hetherington

and Nelson (2003) compared three rally events that involved foreign crises in the United States:

the Cuban missile crisis, Operation Desert Storm, and the 9/11 attacks. Public approval for the

Cuban missile crisis and Operation Desert Storm reached a peak during the middle of the crisis,

but eventually lost public support. The 9/11 terrorist attack had the highest level of public

support for governmental action, and even though public support has decreased, public approval

numbers have been significantly higher than pre-9/11 and Operation Desert Storm (Hetherington

& Nelson, 2003). Hetherington and Nelson (2003) found nationalism and patriotism to be

primary factors motivating public approval for the government’s actions in the war on terror.

Albrecht (2015) found that public support for counter-terrorism policy was also influenced by

national interest, where respondents supported counter-terrorism measures that were harsh

towards terrorists, but less infringing to American soil.

12

Mexican American Support for the Counter-terrorism Laws and Policy.

Public support for a particular course of federal action is a fundamental concern when the

executive and legislative branches of government want to respond quickly to a national threat

and issue a “call to action” (Klarevas, 2002). During the Reagan administration, for example, it

was Secretary of Defense Weinberger who developed guidelines to assist U.S. Presidents in their

decision to use military force abroad (Klarevas, 2002). To attend to the nation’s principles of

democracy, Presidents and Congress are expected to consider the degree of public support that

they have for their military plans and actions. Klarevas (2002) said that public support is an

“essential domino”, the United States government cannot move forward or backward without the

consent of the people.

It is important to ascertain Mexican American attitudes as this ethnic group is one of the

fastest growing segments of the U.S. population. The U.S. Census Bureau states that over half

the growth in the US population between 2000 and 2010 was due to an increase in the Hispanic

population (Ennis, Rios-Vargas, & Albert, 2011). Mexican Americans account for about 24

million people and are the largest Hispanic group in the U.S.; in addition, 11 million Hispanics in

the US were born in Mexico (Gonzalez-Barrera & Lopez, 2013). As the Mexican American and

Hispanic population grows in the U.S., it is important to consider what this group believes to be

important courses of action.

Mexican American public support for the U.S. war on terror and, in particular counter-

terrorism laws and policy, has been an understudied area (Johnson, 2005; Sanchez, 2006). If

Mexican American counter-terrorism support is discussed in the literature it is as a small

percentage (generally less than 15 percent) of a study’s sample. Such studies usually provide

little analysis on what Hispanics believe (see for example, Davis & Silver, 2004; Hetherington

13

&Nelson, 2003; Johnson, 2005; Sanchez, 2006). De la Garza et al. (1996) analyzed data from the

Latino National Political Survey (LNPS) to determine if Mexican Americans exhibited different

American values than their Anglo counterparts. De la Garza et al.’s (1996) study focused

primarily on patriotism levels and ethnic consciousness. In regards to patriotism, they found that

Mexican Americans were just as likely as Whites to portray positive attitudes regarding

patriotism (De la Garza et al., 1996). Discrimination towards Mexican Americans can mitigate a

sense of patriotism; discrimination has been found to increase Mexican American public support

and activism for civil liberties (Johnson, 2005; Sanchez, 2006; De la Garza et al., 1996). In

regards to ethnic consciousness, the more time a Mexican person spent in the United States, the

more they would identify themselves as “American” (Sanchez, 2006).

Civil Liberties

An important aspect of the U.S.’s war on terror is gauging the amount of public support it

has for implementing policy that supports the use of force over countries that are thought to

threaten U.S. interests and, the amount of power it exerts to curtail its citizens’ civil rights

(Klarevas, 2002). Rallied by the aftermath of 9/11 and the devastation felt on U.S. soil, public

support for statutory law, the Patriot Act, was supported by the belief that vast oceans no longer

served as a natural protection from external threat (Kam & Kinder, 2007).

The extent by which the American public is willing to reduce their civil liberties for

national security remains a gray area and requires more research (Hetherington & Suhay, 2011).

Scholars have long argued that American civil liberties are protected through public support, but

when it comes to terrorist threat, the public is most likely to trade some of their civil rights, such

as e-mail interception, and telephone wiretapping (Hetherington & Suhay, 2011; Marcus,

Sullivan, Theiss-Morse, & Wood, 1995). Hetherington and Suhay (2011) and Holsti (2004)

14

found that the American public was more willing to give up civil rights when there were

perceptions of foreign threat. Many decades before 9/11, Singer (1958) described the cause and

effect relationship between the perception of foreign hostility and the United States’ policy

response for national security. Whether changing national laws, which limit our civil liberties,

really deters a foreign threat, is a problem for the public and national leaders to consider (Singer,

1958). Singer (1958) contemplated whether national efforts, such as statutory law changes, are a

response of perceived hostility or if the perceived hostility is a response from statutory laws. It is

easy to argue that incidents require the implementation of stricter laws, but it is more challenging

to detach ourselves from our frantic policy response and contemplate different approaches

(Singer, 1958).

The abstract principles of democracy came into conflict with governmental civilian

oversight after the passage of the Patriot Act (Davis & Silver, 2004). The public, in general,

broadly supported the law to secure the nation from future terroristic threat even if it meant the

loss of civil liberties. However, the perception of civil liberties was found to be contingent upon

race (Davis & Silver, 2004). According to Davis & Silver (2004), Whites were most likely to

support a loss of their civil liberties if it meant reducing terrorism threats, and Hispanics or

Latinos were somewhat likely to support the loss of their civil liberties (Davis & Silver, 2004).

African Americans did not want to give up their rights and showed the most resistance to losing

their liberties even if there was a perceived national terrorist threat (Davis & Silver, 2004). Davis

& Silver posit that African Americans fought a long battle for equality and Civil Rights and

would not want to lose them for the potential of terrorism (Davis & Silver, 2004). Whites and

Hispanic respondents who expressed a high level of fear would willingly exchange their public

civil liberties for homeland security (Davis & Silver, 2004). Davis & Silver (2004) found that

15

public opinion was influenced by three factors: political ideology, national pride, and trust in the

government. If respondents held strong support for their political party’s platform, strong

national pride and high levels of trust in the government, the more likely they were to support

enhanced security and a loss of their civil rights.

Political Affiliation, Nationalism, and Ethnocentrism and Public Opinion

As previously discussed, U.S. counter-terrorism policy and the Patriot Act received some

widespread support from the general public, mostly White Americans, because of fear.

Consequently, U.S. governmental officials felt secure in the support from its constituents

(Gorham-Oscilowski & Jaeger, 2008) and national security letters were used more often while

civil liberties were constrained by the new counter-terrorism measures that were implemented

(Gorham-Oscilowski & Jaeger, 2008). Supporters and critics of the Patriot Act and the counter-

terrorism measures focused their analysis on three measures: political affiliation, nationalism and

ethnocentrism. Political affiliation is the political identity of an individual and how close one’s

ideals is represented by the political platform (McCauley, 2013; Kam & Kinder, 2007).

Political affiliation has been found to influence public support for counter-terrorism law,

depending on political identity, or political party (Kam & Kinder, 2007; Hetherington & Nelson,

2003). Ethnocentrism can be described as a person’s societal belief that one’s folkways, or

culture, are superior to other cultures (Krysan, 2000; Kam and Kinder, 2007). Both Krysan

(2000) and Kam & Kinder (2007) found that voters’ ethnocentric beliefs were significantly

associated with public opinion in the United States. Nationalism can be defined as the level of

patriotism expressed by person that view themselves as “Americans” (Klarevas, 2002; Davis &

Silver, 2004; Zaller, 1992). After 9/11, Davis and Silver (2004), and Klarevas (2002) found that

nationalism influenced public support for U.S. efforts to deter terrorism. American society was

16

left in shock by the destruction, public opinion was solely focused on one goal, deter further

terrorism.

Political Affiliation

A person’s political affiliation with a political party is an important measure of the

political beliefs. The two major parties in the U.S. are the Republican and Democrat parties.

Both parties articulate platforms that set out the ideals for political action and belief for the

American public, these actions and beliefs are noted to be either conservative or liberal on issues

of importance (McCauley, 2013; Kam & Kinder, 2007).

Political affiliation is affected by citizen’s spirit of patriotism (Kam & Kinder, 2007).

Kam & Kinder (2007) and McCauley (2013) have found that political platforms tend to direct

the perceptions of political affiliation members. These platforms have influenced the belief and

undertaking of the war on terror and influenced what the public thought about appropriate

responses to terrorism (Kam & Kinder, 2007). It is important to note, the war on terror was

largely conducted during the term of Republican President Bush, who espoused a different

ideology than that of many Republican citizens. During his term, President Bush had the support

of Republican elites but did not share similar social norms to that of the middle-class (Holsti,

1996). Holsti (1996) found Republican elites to be wealthier individuals that had financial

reasons to support President Bush, thus differentiating their interest from middle class

Americans. When analyzing partisan support for the war on terror, Kam and Kinder (2007), and

Domke et al. (2006) found the public to be influenced by the imminent threat believed to exist

after 9/11. Thus, both Democrats and Republican voters supported Bush’s anti-terrorism policies

and actions in the immediate aftermath of 9/11 in recent years. To counter the denouncement for

harsh counter terrorism measures, conservative governmental actors have made minor changes in

17

terminology so as to garner more support for the new methods of extracting information from

associated terrorists (Gronke et al., 2010).

Nationalism

Nationalism is identified as the patriotic emotion, or principles for one’s nation (Davis &

Silver, 2004; Klarevas, 2002). Similarly, Davis and Silver (2004) defined nationalism as an

intense feeling of national pride and the love of one’s country. Nationalism can play a crucial

role in shaping foreign relations for the United States (Hurwitz & Peffley, 1987). Nationalist

views can inform citizen attitudes about military action and present the government with insight

into how to handle relations with other nations. Hurwitz and Peffley (1987) describe nationalistic

public opinion as that which espouses a national interest and military support as “righteous

decisions.” According to Hetherington and Nelson (2003), nationalism is the national

consciousness raising one’s nation or country, above all those foreign.

Recent studies have shown that a citizen’s sense of nationalism is significantly influenced

by the media; or what Klarevas (2002) argues is the “mainstream effect.” The mainstream effect

is described as the mass influence of media such as newspapers, television, and the internet have

on public opinion (Zaller, 1992). The media can create a sense of duty to fight “evil-doers”;

when nationalism is presented in the extreme, a narrow definition of “American values” is

espoused so that cultures which do not fit within the definition of something that is American

may be perceived as out-groups who are to be hated (Davis & Silver; Klarevas, 2002; Zaller,

1992). Nationalistic public opinion is influenced by devastation of a particular event and united

by hope (Klarevas, 2002). In rallying around the flag after 9/11, the American public came

together to fight a common enemy and the President received majority support for the war on

18

terror (Hetherington & Nelson, 2003). This stimulation caused by hate and fear helps explain

public opinion for the war on terror (Papacharissi & Oliveira, 2008).

The public nationalistic attitude for counter-terrorism was measured by Hetherington and

Nelson's (2003) and by Davis and Silver (2004). By answering nationalism questions,

respondents portrayed the level of nationalist duties and their perceived obligation as U.S.

citizens. Democrats, Republicans, and Independents came together and provided support for a

nationalist agenda set by the President (Hetherington & Nelson, 2003; Davis & Silver, 2004). It

is in question whether the amount of public approval was directed solely by nationalistic duty or

motivated by the commander of chief, President Bush (Hetherington & Nelson, 2003). Davis and

Silver (2004) found nationalism related to the aggressiveness of counter-terrorism strategy

employed by the war on terror.

Ethnocentrism

Ethnocentrism can be defined as a prejudicial point of view where an individual

negatively compares another culture according to one’s own culture; declaring the other culture

to be inferior or obscene (Kam & Kinder, 2007). Kam and Kinder (2007) used the 2000-2002

national election to observe prejudicial attitudes of the American public on measures of

ethnocentricity. Ethnocentrism was found to statistically influence the support for counter-

terrorism measures, where respondents who demonstrated strong ethnocentrism were more likely

to support counter-terrorism policies after 9/11 (Kam & Kinder, 2007).

Political party platforms can be predictors for ethnocentrism when political elites' frame

social problems in a manner to encourage public ethnocentric values (Nelson, Clawson, &Oxley,

1997). Political affiliation ideals fragmented the thoughts of the American public, with right

wing and left wing opinion. Right wing opinion was the most conservative with higher

19

ethnocentrism than left wing opinion, but both political platforms demonstrated some level of

ethnocentrism. Nelson, Clawson, and Oxley (1997) found prejudice, or “ethnocentrism” to be a

contributing factor for American public support for counter-terrorism policy. Ethnocentrism was

found to significantly influence public opinion and the support for counter-terrorism measures,

although political relevance was based upon time period (Kam & Kinder, 2007). Kam and

Kinder (2007) stated that the 9/11 can be viewed as an attack that set in motion the public

support for counter-terrorism laws by stimulating increased ethnocentric values of the American

public.

Krysan (2000) studied the hybridization of prejudice and politics for American public

opinion. According to Krysan (2000), White and African American groups have different

portrayals of public opinion, where ethnocentric attitudes influence policy implications. Research

indicates that racial politics involves attitudes based on racial group interests (Krysan, 2000).

Krysan (2000) and Bobo (2000) argue that White person’s public opinion opposes affirmative

action relative to minorities because they perceive minorities, such as African American, to be in

competition with them for social resources. Kam and Kinder (2007), Krysan (2000), and Bobo

(2000) described ethnocentrism as the psychological driving force for political sway in American

public opinion and ultimately public support; thus, Welch (2015) found that American society is

more than likely to increase punitiveness of counter-terrorism policy, if there was Middle Eastern

stereotype.

Ethnocentrism, however, is time sensitive (Kam & Kinder, 2007). The public’s

ethnocentrism was at an all-time’s high after the terrorist attack of 9/11 (Kam & Kinder, 2007).

Several years after 9/11, the public began to deviate in their support towards the war on terror

and paid less attention to counter-terrorism laws. Thus, Kam and Kinder (2007) found that the

20

public needs to have a perception of threat to influence or increment their support towards

counter-terrorism measures. If individuals perceive a form of threat towards their country,

ethnocentrism would rise and determine their support for harsh counter-terror laws (Kam &

Kinder, 2007).

Counter-Terrorism Policy and the Gender Gap

Since the 1980s, women and men have different policy attitudes, partisanship, and voting

patterns, this social occurrence is normally referred to as the gender gap (Kaufmann & Petrocik,

1999; Wemlinger, 2014). The shift in US foreign policies after the War on Terror has conveyed

the gender gap to different attitudes and support for counter-terrorism policies (Haider-Markel &

Vieux, 2008; Wemlinger, 2014). Wemlinger (2014) analyzed the gender gap in individuals’

attitude towards torture as a counter-terrorism measure. Wemlinger (2014) used data from the

2008 American National Election Study, which included more than 2,000 participant surveys

from 34 US states. Wemlinger’s (2014) two independent variables were (1) whether the

individual was female and (2) whether the individual was a mother. The dependent variable

questioned if respondents favored the use of torture on terrorists by the U.S. government. Torture

was defined as an act that is intentionally inflicted on a person that causes severe pain, both

physically or mentally (Wemlinger, 2014). Wemlinger found that female respondents were

significantly likely to oppose the use of torture. The reason given for females opposing torture

was based on the socialization of women opposing violent behavior, according to Wemlinger

(2014).

A gender difference in regards to attitudes after 9/11 was also the focus of a study by

Lerner, Gonzalez, Small, and Fischhoff (2003). Lerner et al. (2003) did a field experiment by

using a program called Knowledge Networks’, and sampled a population of 75,000 households

21

that closely reflected the U.S. Census. Respondents included 973 individuals who were asked

questions relating to their emotions, including anger and fear during the 9/11 terroristic attacks.

Results indicated gender differences; females felt higher present risks of future terroristic attacks

by demonstrating more fear than males. Males were more confident that there would not be

another terrorist attack like 9/11. Lerner also found that respondents who felt anger, also felt

vengeful towards foreigners in the U.S., and strongly supported deporting foreigners in the U.S.

who lacked valid visas. Learner concluded that females were more influenced by emotions such

as anger, and fear than males; thus, increasing more female support for terrorism policy. Lerner

(2003: 150) stated that females seemed to be influenced by media and politicians’ portrayal of

the “risks of terror” to the public.

Piazza (2015) conducted a national sample and surveyed 1,135 individuals regarding

their support for controversial counter-terrorism measures such as indefinite detention, and not

allowing a lawyer for suspects. This study found that the public supported both a reduction for

the rights of Muslims in the U.S. after 9/11 and for the general U.S. population (Piazza, 2015).

According to Piazza (2015), a heightened perception of threat, or risk was dependent upon

gender and income. Wealthy male participants were more likely to support counter-terrorism

measures like indefinite detention of potential terrorists, but females were more likely to value

civil liberties over counter-terrorism policy. The findings by Lerner (2003) and Piazza (2015)

indicate that public support for the reduction of civil liberties in exchange for national security

can be attributed to gender differences.

Haider-Markel and Vieux (2008) analyzed data from a telephone survey conducted on a

national, random U.S. sample. Participants were asked several questions regarding the war on

terrorism and interrogation techniques (torture); a total of 892 adults participated in the study.

22

Respondents were asked if they favored torture if it meant extracting valuable information that

could potentially thwart future terrorism in the U.S. Methods contemplated by respondents were:

(1) Not allowing the detainee to sleep, (2) Keeping a hood over the detainee’s head for long

periods, (3) Threatening to shoot the detainee, and (4) Making the detainee go naked. Haider-

Markel and Vieux (2008) analyzed the type of tortures accepted by society, and found that while

females did not support national security interrogation measures in general, some torturing

methods did receive conditional female support depending on the type of method used to deliver

the pain. Male respondents provided higher support for most forms of torture than female

respondents. Haider-Markel and Vieux (2008) surmise that the gender difference might be due

to the fact that it has been several years after 9/11 and female support have changed. However,

female respondents supported the "conditional" use of torture if it was presented as a mild form

of interrogation technique such as not letting the detainee sleep.

Women and men have different policy attitudes towards support for national security

measures over civil liberties; these differences in attitude can be deemed a gender gap (Haider-

Markel & Vieux, 2008; Kaufmann, 2006; Lerner, 2003; Wemlinger, 2014). Female support for

counter-terrorism policy has changed after 9/11; after a decade women no longer expressed

strong fears of terrorists and were less willing to give up their civil liberties. Males, however,

still show support for more punitive policies and practices to thwart terrorism. Understanding the

nature and extent of this gender gap from a cross cultural perspective requires more analysis.

Summary

Over the past 200 years, U.S. citizens feel strongly about their nation and its founding

principles of democracy and civil liberty. What nationalism, patriotism and freedom means can

be dependent upon the time period studied, whether a tragic event has occurred, the degree to

23

which a perceived threat is actualized, and the individuals who asked to rally around the flag.

Some U.S. citizens feel patriotic duty to serve and secure the freedom of its nation, no matter the

effect on their civil rights. However, others feel that civil rights are too precious to lose for

indefinite or undetermined purposes; this can be attributed to a person’s nationalist beliefs,

ethnocentric attitudes, political affiliation and gender. The demographic characteristics of an

individual matter when assessing public opinion about the war on terror and the extent to which

U.S. policy will be supported.

24

CHAPTER III

METHODOLOGY

This study is a partial replication of Welch’s (2015) research on public attitudes towards

counter-terrorism. As noted in the Introduction, Welch analyzed public opinion on eight counter

terrorism policies; she then created a composite dependent variable, which she referred to as

support for counter terrorism. In this study, I followed Welch's casting of these eight measures

and strategy in creating in creating a component dependent variable (CDV). For my independent

variables, I used measures for nationalism, ethnocentricity, and political affiliation, as defined in

studies conducted by Blais et al. (2001), Kam and Kinder (2007), and Davis and Silver (2004).

This study will be on the public opinion held by students attending a South Texas

university. The primary question for this study is: What influences Hispanic support for counter-

terrorism policy? In this study, my hypotheses are:

H1: Hispanics who strongly identify themselves as American (hold strong nationalism

beliefs) are more likely to value national security from terrorism over protection of one’s

civil liberties.

H2: Hispanic students who hold more ethnocentric views are most likely to support

national security over civil liberties than students who hold less ethnocentric.

H3: Hispanics who are in the Republican party are more likely than persons in the

Democrat and Independent parties to value national security from terrorism over

protection of one’s civil liberties.

H4: The impact of nationalism on support for counter-terrorism policy is moderated by

gender.

25

H5: The impact of ethnocentrism on support for counter-terrorism policy is moderated by

gender.

H6: The impact of political affiliation on support for counter-terrorism policy is

moderated by gender.

Theoretical Model

Public support for counter-terrorism has demonstrated the influence nationalism,

ethnocentrism, and political affiliation on public opinion. Welch (2015) analyzed whether

Middle Eastern stereotype influenced the support for counter-terrorism policy with eight policy

measures. Rather than study Middle Eastern stereotypes on support for national security, this

study will assess the effect of nationalism, ethnocentrism, and political affiliation on support for

national security over civil liberties. This study also intends to analyze the gender gap in public

support for counter-terrorism policy measures (see Figure 1).

The first model (Model 1) includes nationalism, ethnocentrism, and political affiliation as

main independent variables. Gender is then added into Model 2 with the three main independent

variables to see its main effect on the compooent dependent variable (CDV). The rest of the

control variables, ethnicity, gender, age, annual household income, and level of education were

then added to create Model 3 to determine if they help explain public attitudes favoring national

security over civil liberties. Model 4 includes all the previously mentioned independent variables

with the CDV, and the three interactions terms of gender with nationalism (Gender X

Nationalism), ethnocentrism (Gender X Etnocentrism), and political affiliation (Gender X

Political Affiliation). Thus, Figure 1 depicts both the direct and the moderating role of gender on

the impact of nationalism, ethnocentrism, and political affiliation on support for counter-terrosim

policy.

26

Figure 1. Theoretical Model Depicting the Direct and the Moderating Role of Gender on the

Influence of Nationalism, Ethnocentrism, and Political Affiliation on Support for Counter-

Terrorism.

Study Location

Laredo has a population of more than 255,000, and the city is 96 percent Hispanic (U.S.

Census, 2014). The median household income is $39,408 (U.S. Census, 2014). Laredo’s

population is 51 percent female, and the female median income is $14,328; male median income

is $22,974 (U.S. Census Bureau, 2014). Employment in Laredo has been positively impacted by

oil fields, giving middle class wages to residents, as well as import and export businesses, which

gives Laredo the nickname “The Gateway City” (City of Laredo, 2016). The city’s high school

graduation rate is 65.4 percent.

Nationalism

Ethnocentrism

Political

Affiliation

Support for

Counter-

Terrorism

Gender

Control

Variables

27

Data Collection

I surveyed students in attendance at Texas A&M International University, located in

Laredo, Texas. Laredo is a community that is primarily composed of Mexican American citizens

and is on the border with Mexico. In this study, my respondents comprised undergraduate and

graduate students who major in a social science discipline: Criminal Justice, Sociology, Political

Science, Psychology, and Public Administration.

Respondents

According to the Office of the Registrar at Texas A&M International University, 900

students were currently majoring in a social science discipline at the time of data collection. All

900 students were sent a survey in June 2016. In order to participate, respondents had to be at

least 18 years of age, registered voters, and in current attendance at the university. There were

202 students who responded to my participation request, and 192 completed surveys were

returned; a response rate of 21%.

Survey Administration

After receiving approval from the Institutional Review Board at TAMIU, the data

collection process began. All 900 undergraduate and graduate students who were majoring in

Criminal Justice, Sociology, Political Science, Psychology and Public Administration were

emailed a survey that was created using SurveyMonkey (See Appendix A: Civil Liberties v

National Security Survey). Students were asked to click on a link to the online survey and

indicate if they would agree to voluntarily participate. I had the survey open for one month so

that respondents could submit their responses starting May 28, 2016 and end in June 30, 2016.

Measurements

Component Dependent Variable

28

Welch (2015) used eight measures pertaining to the level of support a person had for

particular counter-terrorism measures. An 11-point scale was used to indicate respondents’

support for each measure; the scale ranged from 0 (no support for the counter terrorism measure)

to 10 (most support for the counter terrorism measure). I followed Welch’s strategy in creating

her component dependent variable (CDV), which she created from the eight counter-terrorism

policies. While Welch called her CDV “anti-terror punitiveness,” I focused on the opposite end

of the 11-point scale and called my CDV “support for counter terrorism.” The CDV was created

following Welch’s data reduction technique; I performed a principal component analysis, with a

varimax orthogonal-type rotation, and derived my CDV using the Anderson-Rubin scoring

method of the software Statistical Packages for the Social Sciences (SPSS version 23) (Field,

2013). My CDV’s Cronbach’s alpha value was at .891, meaning that the combined measures

used to form my CDV hang together and form reliable measures.

Independent Variables

For my independent variables, I used measures pertaining to the constructs: nationalism,

ethnocentrism, and political affiliation. In the paragraphs below, I describe in detail how I

measured each of these constructs.

Nationalism

Nationalism is the pride or patriotic duty an individual has towards his or her country (Li

& Brewer, 2004). For this study, I applied Kosterman and Feshbach's (1989), and Li and

Brewer's (2004) measurement of nationalism. Both sets of authors asked their respondents three

questions to create a composite independent nationalism variable. The questions asked

respondents to indicate their level of agreement, on a 5-point scale, with the following

statements: (1) The first duty of every young American is to honor the national American

29

history; (2) People should support their country even if the country is in the wrong, and (3) Being

an American is an important part of my identity. Following, Kosterman and Feshbach (1989)

and Li and Brewer (2004), the same sets of queries and 5-point Likert scale are applied, with “1”

being “Strongly Agree” and “5” being “Strongly Disagree” for nationalism. Strong nationalism

is indicated by “1”, and 5 indicate weak nationalism. The 3-item index was then recoded into a

single composite variable to measure nationalism. I took the average score for the recoded

nationalism measure, high scores mean low on nationalism, and low scores mean high on

nationalism. The nationalism composite independent variable has a Cronbach’s alpha of .751,

evidence of a strong reliability measure for the construct nationalism.

Ethnocentrism

For this study, I measured ethnocentrism by using Neulip and McCroskey's (1997), and

Li and Brewer's (2004) measurements. These authors used the same scale to measure

ethnocentricity. The 5-point Likert scale asks respondents to rate if they “1” “Strongly Agree” to

“5” if they “Strongly Disagree” with two statements about their level of support for ethnocentric

values. The statements are: (1) It is better for the country if different racial and ethnic groups

adapt and blend into the larger society, and (2) We should be more tolerant of people who choose

to live according to their own standards, even if they are very different from our own. The two

items measuring ethnocentrism were then recoded, and transformed into a composite

independent variable for ethnocentricity. I took the average score for the recoded ethnocentrism

measure, high scores mean high ethnocentricity, and low scores mean low on ethnocentrism.

The ethnocentricity variable had a Cronbach’s Alpha of .402. This value did not meet the

minimum requirement; hence, careful interpretations of results are recommended.

Political Affiliation

30

Political affiliation is the party a person indicates as their voting party preference. Due to

political influence and ideology, counter-terrorism has inadvertently been influenced by politics

(Kam & Kinder, 2007). I used one question to measure political affiliation, from Blais et al.'s

(2001) and NBC News (2016) survey, “In politics today, do you consider yourself a Republican,

Democrat, Independent, Libertarian or none?” (NBC News, 2016, p.1; Blais et al., 2001, p.17).

Political affiliation was measured with 5 values indicating the level of conservativeness, but I did

a recode where (1) was Republican/Libertarian, (2) Democrat, (3) Independent, and (4) none. I

took the average score for political affiliation, and measured the variable based on

conservativeness, low scores mean more conservative, and high scores mean less conservative.

Demographic Characteristics

Ethnicity, gender, age, annual household income, and level of education are control

variables in my study (see Table 2: Demographic Characteristics).

Race and Ethnicity: Similar to Welch (2015), I asked persons their race or ethnicity

according to the usual categories (White, African American, Hispanic/Latino, Asian, Native

American). If respondents indicated that they were Hispanic, then I asked them to identify the

nation of their ethnicity into two categories (0) Mexican American, and (1) Other Hispanic. The

respondents for this study were all from Texas A&M International University, and the results are

similar to the institution’s demographic information. According to TAMIU's Fall 2015 report,

92% of the total student population were considered Hispanic; in the current study, 193 (94%) of

this study’s participants indicated that they were Hispanic with 182 (92%) identifying themselves

as Mexican American.

Gender: Similar to Welch (2015), gender was coded as a dichotomous variable, (0)

female or (1) male. There were 88 male (46%) and 103 (54%) female respondents. Female

31

participation is higher than male, and is representative of the student population. According to

Welch (2011), gender of participants can predict the amount of support for retributive laws

against terrorism. Due to studies that support the existence of gender gap in support for counter-

terrorism policy, this study casted gender in three ways: (1) as an independent variable in Model

2; (2) as a control variable in Model 3; and (3) as an interactional or moderating variable with the

three main independent variables in Model 4. I created three interaction terms by multiplying

gender with measures for nationalism, ethnocentrism, and political affiliation. In other words,

gender is applied as a moderator for the impact of the three main predictors on the support for

counter-terrorism policy, creating three interaction terms: Gender X Nationalism, Gender X

Ethnocentrism, and Gender X Political Affiliation. Gender is the hypothesized to be moderator

based on the casting of my theoretical model in Figure 1.

Age: In my survey, data on age were collected as a continuous measure; the youngest

respondents in this study were 18 years of age and the oldest respondent was 60. In order to

conduct my analysis, I recoded age to be a categorical variable since most respondents were

under the age of 23. I created 4 age categories: (1) 18 to 29; (2) 21 to 23; (3) 24 to 26; and (4) 27

and Over. However, I used the midpoint of each age categories in running my regression

analyses and used 19, 22, 25, and 27 to represent the age categories in those analyses. This

enabled me to have similar sample sizes within my age category: age category 1 had 29.8%;

category 2 had 35.1%; category 3 had 20.4%; and category 4 had 13.9%.

Annual Household Income: Income was measured as a dichotomous variable; with (0)

being respondents having a household income of $49,999 or less, and (1) being respondents

having a household income of $50,000 or more. In this study, 75% of respondents indicated they

received less than $50,000 annual household income, and 26% of respondents earned more than

32

$50,000 annual household income. I used these measures because they were used by both Piazza

(2015), and Abrajano et al.’s (2008) in their research on counter terrorism. It is important to note

that the variable income is the respondent’s reported “household income”, which is not solely

derived from respondent’s annual income, but the combination of individuals living in the same

household.

Table 2. Demographic Characteristics

Frequency (Percent)

Ethnicity and Race

Mexican American

Non-Mexican American

182 (94.3%)

11 (5.7%)

Gender

Male

Female

88 (46.1%)

103 (53.9%)

Age

18 to 20

21 to 23

24 to 26

27 and Over

57 (29.8%)

67 (5.1%)

39 (20.4%)

28 (13.9%)

Annual Household Income

$0 to $49,999

$50,000 and Over

144 (74.6%)

49 (25.4%)

Educational Attainment Level

Some College

Bachelor’s Degree

More than Bachelor’s Degree

109 (56.5%)

64 (33.2%)

20 (10.4%)

Note: N = 193

Educational Attainment Level: Educational attainment was created using the higher

education categories used by Welch (2015), Piazza (2015), and Abrajano et al. (2008).

Education was measured by asking “what is your highest education level?” Respondents’ choices

were: (1) Some College, (2) Bachelor’s Degree, and (3) More than a Bachelor’s Degree.

Majority of respondents (57%) were undergraduates who indicated that they had some college

33

education. The other respondents either completed their bachelor’s degree (33.2%), or indicated

that they had more than a bachelor’s degree (10%).

Analytical Strategy

Welch (2015) analyzed the mean, standard deviations, and bivariate correlations for her

independent variables and component dependent variable (CDV). My study used ordinary least

squares (OLS) regression. This regression is used to demonstrate the effects of the three main

independent variables and control variables on the dependent variable. The same regression

approach is used to examine the interaction of gender with measures of nationalism,

ethnocentrism, and political affiliation on support for counter-terrorism measures. In coming up

with my CDV, I used a data reduction technique called principal component analysis on the eight

items used by Welch (2015).

Principal Component Analysis

Principal component analysis (PCA) was used to create my component dependent

variable (CDV) for two reasons: (1) It was used as part of Welch’s (2015) original study, and (2)

to reduce the eight measure into one component (Field, 2013). Principal component analysis

requires a sufficient sample size, and component loadings that are significant based on Steven’s

0.364 minimum threshold value (Fields, 2013).

Table 3 provides the correlation matrix of the eight dependent variables used to create my

CDV. The sample size used to estimate the correlation and the significance of the estimates are

also given. According to Table 3, the sample size is suitable for this type of data reduction

technique. Two methods of interpreting the suitability of data were used: the Kaiser-Meyer-

Olkin Measure of Sampling Adequacy, and the Bartlett’s Test of Sphericity. Using Kaiser-

Meyer-Olkin Measure of Sampling Adequacy, a minimum of .50 value determined the suitability

34

of sample size to be used by PCA (Field, 2013). The Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Measure of Sampling

Adequacy score for my study was .851, satisfying the minimum value. A KMO of 1.00 indicates

that the correlations are close, thus PCA should demonstrate distinct and reliable components

(Field, 2013). My CDV was computed using the Anderson-Rubin’s scoring method (Field

2013).

The correlation matrix displays variables with different values that need to have a

minimum of .30 and less than .90 to be deemed suitable for data reduction, according to Field

(2013). Kaiser’s criterion determined the retention of principal components using the threshold

eigenvalues greater than or equal to 1.00. Another determinant for component suitability is the

component matrix table, which shows how well variables loaded together. The loadings were

found to be strong, and all measures demonstrated compactness. Stevens (2002) created a table

of critical values for which “loadings” were compared, and assessed the adequacy of sample size

and loading values. My study used Stevens (2002) suggestion of providing a sample size of 200,

and setting the significance at values of component loadings of at least .364. My results showed

high loadings on all eight measures, demonstrating one principal component, making the

interpretation adequate using one component. Orthogonal rotation technique was applied to

discriminate between the components and I used Varimax rotation to extract the CDV.

35

Table 3. Dependent Variable Correlation Matrix

Correlations Holding

prisoners

indefinitely without

being

charged for an offense.

Detaining

terrorist

suspects without

notifying

their families or

embassies.

Using

stressful

interrogation techniques to

get

confessions.

Holding trials

that do not

involve Bill of Rights

protections.

Executing

more

terrorists.

Wiretappin

g phones in

the United States.

Intercepting

emails and

other personal

electronic

information.

Conducting

searches and

seizures of individuals

and their

belongings without

proper

warrants.

(.838) (.831) (.825) (.789) (.769) (.735) (.635) (.598)

Holding prisoners

indefinitely

without being charged for an

offense.

1.000

Detaining terrorist

suspects without

notifying their families or

embassies.

.608*** 1.000

Using stressful

interrogation

techniques to get confessions.

.380*** .502*** 1.000

Holding trials that

do not involve

Bill of Rights protections.

.631*** .619*** .499*** 1.000

Executing more terrorists.

.386*** .510*** .360*** .449*** 1.000

Wiretapping

phones in the United States.

.405*** .453*** .482*** .537*** .351*** 1.000

Intercepting emails and other

personal

electronic information.

.478*** .456*** .428*** .587*** .366*** .870*** 1.000

Conducting searches and

seizures of

individuals and their belongings

without proper

warrants.

.565*** .553*** .407*** .707*** .361*** .620*** .725*** 1.000

Note. () indicate Component Matrix Loading.

Bartlett’s Test of Sphericity = .000,

For the significance of the Component Loading, I use Stevens (2002) rule, see Field (2013).

*** Correlation is Significant (P < .001)

Ordinary Least-Squares Regression

Ordinary Least-Squares regression is one of the most popular forms of regression

analysis used in criminology (Walker & Maddan, 2013). The OLS regression models the linear

36

relationship between the independent and the dependent variable. In building my regression

models, I used a minimum .05 level of significance(α) in each of the four regression models. For

the different levels of significance, * indicates P < .05, ** indicates P < .05, and *** indicates P

< .001. My regression analysis approach takes the form of sequentially building four models

(Model 1, Model 2, Model 3, and Model 4). In Model 1, only the measures pertaining to

nationalism, ethnocentrism, and political affiliation are the independent variables. Model 2

includes gender with the other three main independent variables. The control variables, ethnicity,

gender, age, annual household income, and level of education are added to Model 3. The

interaction variables are then added to Model 4, which includes gender x nationalism, gender x

ethnocentrism, and gender x political affiliation.

37

CHAPTER IV

FINDINGS

In this chapter, I discuss the findings from Hispanic sample of n=193 students attending a

South Texas university. I begin by stating the measures of central tendency for the dependent

variable, along with component loadings, then the frequency and percentage of the main

independent variables. I then discuss the findings pertaining to my regression analyses

mentioned earlier in Chapter 3.

Measure of Central Tendency for Counter-Terrorism Support

Table 4 presents the eight individual counter-terrorism policy measures before they are

into one component dependent variable (CDV). In Table 4, I provide the mean, standard

deviation, and component loading of each of the eight policy measures. I evaluated each of these

means against the 11-point scale (0 is strong support for civil liberties and 10 is strong support

for national security) previously described above to indicate the level of support for counter-

terrorism over civil liberties. Table 4 provides the mean value of support for each of the eight

measures, which are as follows: (1) prisoner indefinite detention, mean is3.96; (2)detention of

terrorists without family notification, mean is 4.6; (3)using stressful interrogation techniques for

terrorist confessions received higher support than five other questions with a mean of 4.71; (4)

holding trials without the Bill of Rights protections received the least amount of support from all

counter-terrorism policy measures with a mean score of 3.20; (5) executing more terrorists had

the most support from participants with a mean of 6.35; (6) wiretapping phones in the United

States, and (7) intercepting emails and other personal electronic information got the same support

from respondents with a mean of 4.2; and (8) the last counter-terrorism policy measure was

warrantless seizures on persons, which had the least public support with a mean score of 3.37.

38

The component loadings indicated by Table 4 demonstrate compactness, and beyond the

minimum required value to be taken as significant. The high loadings for each of the eight

measures signifies one component variable, thus can be used to reliably measure one construct,

support for counter-terrorism policy. The component loading according to each policy measures

was as follows: (1) the prisoner indefinite detention component loading is .735; (2) the detention

of terrorists without family notification component loading of .769; (3) using stressful

interrogation techniques for terrorist confessions received higher support than five other

questions with a component loading of .653; (4) holding trials without the Bill of Rights

protections had a component loading of .838; (5) executing more terrorists had a component

loading of .598; (6) phone wiretapping has a component loading of .789; (7) email interception

has a component loading of .825; and (8) the last counter-terrorism policy measure was

Table 4. Support for Counter-Terrorism Policy

Counter-Terrorism Support (0-10 scale, 10= Most Support)

Mean

SD

Component

Loading

Holding prisoners indefinitely without being charged for an

offense.

3.96 3.45 .735

Detaining terrorist suspects without notifying their families or

embassies.

4.60 3.46 .769

Using stressful interrogation techniques to get confessions. 4.71 3.55 .653

Holding trials that do not involve Bill of Rights protections. 3.20 3.44 .838

Executing more terrorists. 6.35 3.62 .598

Wiretapping phones in the United States. 4.20 3.71 .789

Intercepting emails and other personal electronic information. 4.20 3.68 .825

Conducting searches and seizures of individuals and their

belongings without proper warrants.

3.37 3.71 .831

Note. Component loadings based on individual contributions to 8-item Counter-Terrorism Support Index.

All component loadings are significant based on Steven’s (2002) .364 or more rule.

Eigenvalue for principal component 1 is 4.61; this captures 58% of the variance contained in the original eight

policy measures retained.

39

warrantless seizures on persons which has a component loading of .831. All eight measures

were measuring different constructs, but based on their loadings, it is safe to name “support for

counter-terrorism policy” as the component variable.

Nationalism

Table 5 details the frequency and percentages of the three item nationalism index with the

5-point Likert scale, “1” being “Strongly Agree” and “5” being “Strongly Disagree”. The

nationalism index measures the pride or patriotic duty an individual has towards his or her

country. The first nationalist measure was whether participants agree with the duty of every

young American is to honor the national American history, 34% of respondents strongly agreed,

and 35% agreed. Participants indicated strong nationalism with this measure. However,

respondents shifted their agreement in the second nationalistic measure, when it came to support

the US even if the country was in the wrong, 31% of respondents disagreed, and 25% strongly

disagreed; this indicates a weak sense of nationalism. Participants demonstrated a high sense of

pride after almost the majority of respondents strongly agreed, being 42%, and 41% agreed, this

indicates a very strong sense of nationalism.

Ethnocentrism

Table 5 also provides the two-item ethnocentrism index, with the same five-point Likert

scale. The ethnocentrism index measures the belief of individuals and the acceptance of

different folkways, or cultures other than the US. When participants were asked if they agreed

that it was better for the US if different racial and ethnic groups adapted and blend into the larger

society, 39% strongly agreed and 29% agreed. Most respondents agreed with the second

measure, where the US should be more tolerant of people who choose to live according to their

40

own standards, even if they are different from their own, 50% strongly agreed and 33% agreed.

Both measures suggest that respondents held ethnocentric views.

Table 5. Nationalism and Ethnocentrism Frequency and Percentages

Level of Agreement with

Statement

1

2

3

4

5

Nationalism

The first duty of every young American

is to honor the national American

history.

65 (33.9%) 67 (34.9%) 31 (16.1%) 23 (12%) 6 (3.1%)

People should support their country

even if the country is in the wrong.

30 (15.6%) 25 (13%) 30 (15.6%) 60 (31.3%) 47 (24.5%)

The fact that I am an American is an

important part of my identity.

80 (41.9%) 79 (41.4%) 12 (6.3%) 16 (8.4%) 4 (2.1%)

Ethnocentrism

It is better for the country if different

racial and ethnic groups adapt and

blend into the larger society.

74 (38.5%) 55 (28.6%) 29 (15.1%) 26 (13.5%) 8 (4.2%)

We should be more tolerant of people

who choose to live according to their

own standards, even if they are very

different from our own.

95 (49.5%) 63 (32.8%) 24 (12.5%) 6 (3.1%) 4 (2.1%)

Note. Parenthesis indicate valid percentages

Likert scale of 1 to 5 (1 being Strongly Agree and 5 being Strongly Disagree; 3 Not Sure)

Political Affiliation

Table 6 provides the frequency and percentages of respondents’ indicated party

affiliation. Most of the respondents indicated that they were Democrat, being 45%. It is no

surprise that the majority of respondents are Democrat because this sample is based from a South

Texas border city that is highly Hispanic and the city is very Democratic. Republicans and

Libertarians made 18% of responses and14% of respondents considered themselves

41

Independents. Table 6 also shows that there were 23% of responses that did not affiliate with any

political party.

Table 6. Political Affiliation Frequency and Percentages

Party

Frequency (Percentages)

N = 202

Republican/Libertarian

37 (18.3%)

Democrat

90 (44%)

Independent

29 (14.4%)

None

46 (22.8%)

Note: Pearson’s Chi-Square Test was significant (P < .001).

Regression Results

Model 1

Table 7presents the regression results for Models 1 thru 4. Model 1 shows the effect of

nationalism, ethnocentrism, and political affiliation on the component dependent variable,

support for counter-terrorism measures. As model, Model 1 has an ANOVA p-value of .000 (not

shown in Table 7), which means that Model 1 is statistically significant and not likely to have

happened solely by chance. Model 1 explains16% (R2=.16) of the variance in support with both

nationalism (β = -.200; p<.05) and political affiliation (β = -.433; p<.01) being significant. Model

1 supports both H1 and H3, but not H2.

H1: Hispanics who strongly identify themselves as American are most likely to value

national security from terrorism over protection of one’s civil liberties.

42

H3: Hispanics who are in the Republican party are more likely than persons in the

Democrat and Independent parties to value national security from terrorism over

protection of one’s civil liberties.

According to Model 1, nationalism was a significant predictor for support of counter-terrorism

policy. Nationalism had a p-value of .030 (not in your table so why not just say p<.05 as this is

how you declare significance at the bottom of Table 7), and this model indicates a negative

standardized regression coefficient (β=-.200), which indicates a negative relationship with the

dependent variable. Put another way, Hispanic students who hold high nationalism are more

likely to support counter-terrorism policy. The respondents who held high nationalism were

those who supported the most punitive counter-terrorism measures, and identified themselves

with strong American values. The stronger participants portrayed themselves as having

American values and a strong American identity, then the more support they favor counter-

terrorism policies. As a result, H1 is supported. Political Affiliation was also found to be a

significant predictor, with a p-value of .000. Political affiliation has a standardized regression

coefficient of -.319, thus also demonstrating a negative relationship with the dependent variable.

The negative scale means that as participants identify themselves as Republican/Libertarian,

there’s an increase for counter-terrorism policy support.

43

Table 7. Ordinary Least-Square Regression on Support for Counter-Terrorism

Support for Counter-Terrorism Policy

Model 1

Model 2

Model 3

Model 4

Β β B β Β β B β

Nationalism Index α=.751 -.070* -.200* -.050 -.144 -.049 -.144 -.030 -.088

Ethnocentrism Index α=.402 .026 .044 .027 .046 .034 .058 .057 .097

Political Affiliation -.495** -.319** -.433** -.275** -.416** -.269**

-.152 -.098

Gender

.752** .370** .769** .383** 1.241* .617*

Ethnicity

.072 .015 .160 .022

Age

.098 .098 .095 .095

Annual Household Income

.404* .181* .398* .178*

Level of Education

-.376* -.260* -.372* -.257*

GenderXNationalism

-.011 -.061

GenderxEthnocentrism -.018 -.060

GenderxPolitical Affiliation -.166 -.229

R2 .160 .286 .350 .353

Adjusted R2 .143 .266 .313 .302

N = 193

Note. *=p<.05, **=p<.01, and ***=p<.001

Gender (0=female, 1=male)

Ethnicity (0=Mexican American, 1=Hispanic)

Annual Household income (0= less than $49,999, 1=at least $50,000 per annum)

Level of Education (1=Some College, 2=Bachelor’s Degree, and 3=More than a Bachelor’s Degree)

44

Model 2

Model 2 includes the three measures pertaining to nationalism, ethnocentrism, and

political affiliation plus gender as an independent variable. As a whole, Model 2 was found

significant with a regression ANOVA p-value = .000. The r-square is 0.286 and adjusted r-

Square .266. Only two of the four independent variables were found significant, political

affiliation (β = -.275; p <. 01) and gender (β = -,379; p < .01). These results mean that

participants affiliated to Republicans/Libertarian Parties (highly conservative) are supportive of

national security over civil liberties. Furthermore, males show stronger support for counter-

terrorism measures than females. Model 2 results affirm H4: Male Hispanics are most likely than

female Hispanics to value national security from terrorism over protection of one’s civil liberties.

Model 3

Table 7 also presents Model3 with demographic variables ethnicity, gender, age, annual

household income, and education level. Model 3 includes the main independent variables

nationalism, partisanship, and ethnocentrism. As a model, Model 3 has an associated p-value of

p<.001. In other words, at least one of the predictors in this model has a significant impact on the

component dependent variable. In and of itself, this model is able to explain 35% of the

variability in the component dependent variable.

Even with the control variables added to the regression Model, political affiliation was

still found to be highly significant. However, nationalism was not found significant in this

model. Political affiliation (β=-.269; p<.001) and gender (β=.383; p<.001) were significant in

Model 3. Political affiliation was the only main independent variable found significant in Model

3. Therefore, H03 is affirmed. The demographic variables were also found significant in this

regression model. Only three demographic variables were found significant by regression Model

45

3, gender, annual household income, and education level. Annual household income (β=.181;

p<.001) and level of education (β=-.260; p<.001) were also found significant in Model 3. Based

on my results, males were more likely to support counter-terrorism laws than women.

Participants with lower level of education tend to support counter-terrorism policy more strongly

than participants who have higher level of education. Respondents who earned more annual

household income were more likely to support counter-terrorism policy. However, age and

ethnicity were not found statistically significant, this might be due to the fact that more than 90%

of participants were Hispanic and respondents’ age was mostly 18 to 23.

Model 4

Model 4 presents all variables, including the main independent variables with

demographic variables; however, this Model also includes the interaction of the three main

variables with gender. Thus, Gender X Nationalism, Gender X Ethnocentrism, and Gender X

Political Affiliation are included in the analyses. Model 4 was found significant (p<.001); in

other words, at least one of the predictors in this model has a significant impact on the

component dependent variable. Model 4 has 35% explained variance (R-Square = .353).

Nationalism, ethnocentrism, and political affiliation were not found significant for this Model.

Gender X Nationalism, Gender X Ethnocentrism, and Gender X Political Affiliation were also

not significant. Model 4 results do not affirm H4. Nevertheless, the three demographic variables

from Model 3 were still found significant in Model 4.

Gender vs. Civil Liberties

Table 8 provides a crosstab analysis of the gender of respondents by three of Welch’s

dependent variables (1) their support for holding trials without Bill of Rights protections, (2)

executing more terrorists, and (3) warrantless searches. This further analysis was done because

46

of two reasons: (1) there is a gender gap in public support for counter-terrorism policy; and (2)

gender makes up most of the explained variance and is found statistically significant in Models 2

through 4. Frequency and percentages are included for each policy, and support levels were

truncated from an 11-point scale to a 4-point scale. The scale is as follows: (1) Most support for

civil liberties, (2) Some support for civil liberties, (3) Some support for national security

measures, and (4) Most support for national security measures. The sample size is 193, and it is

not likely to have happened solely by chance with a Pearson’s Chi-Square score of .000

significance. The statistics indicate that females offered the least support for counter-terrorism

policies if it meant reducing civil liberties. Holding trials without Bill of Rights protections, the

execution of more terrorists, and warrantless searches were chosen for further analysis to

determine if there was a gender gap in support for counter-terrorism policy.

The statistics for Table 8 is mostly distributed among different levels of support for both

genders. The majority of females (67%) do not support holding trials without Bill of Rights

protections, only some males (41%) show support of civil liberties over the national security

measure. A gender gap was also found in the support of national security over civil liberties

when it came to executing more terrorists. Females demonstrated 33% support for the national

security measure while the majority of males (67%) supported executing terrorists as a national

security measure. Finally, a gender gap was also shown in regard to support for warrantless

searches as a national security measure. The majority of females (71%) did not support such

warrantless searches in exchange for national while only some males (38%) indicated civil

liberty support of warrantless searches.

47

Table 8. Cross Tabulation of Gender and Counter-Terrorism Policies

Gender

Female Male

Holding Trials without Bill of Rights*** Most Support for Civil Liberties

Some Support for Civil Liberties

Some Support for National Security

Most Support for National Security

Executing More Terrorist*** Most Support for Civil Liberties

Some Support for Civil Liberties

Some Support for National Security

Most Support for National Security

Warrantless Searches*** Most Support for Civil Liberties

Some Support for Civil Liberties

Some Support for National Security

Most Support for National Security

N = 190

68 (66.7%)

17 (16.7%)

13 (12.7%)

4 (3.9%)

28 (27.5%)

15 (14.7%)

25 (24.5%)

34 (33.3%)

72 (70.6%)

7 (6.9%)

13 (12.7%)

10 (9.8%)

36 (40.9%)

11 (12.5%)

15 (17%)

26 (29.5%)

9 (10.2%)

5 (5.7%)

15 (17%)

59 (67%)

33 (37.5%)

10 (11.4%)

14 (15.9%)

31 (35.2%)

Note. *** Pearson’s Chi-Square is Significant (P < .001).

Summary

The findings provided in this chapter indicate mixed results, public support was

contingent upon the impact that counter-terrorism policy had on respondents’ civil liberties and

national security. H1 not affirmed, Hispanics who strongly identify themselves as American are

most likely to value national security from terrorism over protection of one’s civil liberties,

based on Model 3. H2 was not affirmed, Hispanic students who are more ethnocentric will

support national security over civil liberties than students who are less ethnocentric, based on

Model 3. However, H3 is affirmed, political affiliation is significantly related to whether a

person values their civil liberties or more national security; Hispanics who are in the Republican

party are more likely than persons in the Democrat and Independent parties to value national

48

security from terrorism over protection of one’s civil liberties. Gender was found significant for

Models two, three, and four as a main effect, but not as a moderator for the impact of

nationalism, ethnocentrism, and political affiliation on the dependent variable, support for

counter-terrorism policy. Thus, H4, H5, and H6 are not affirmed.

49

CHAPTER V

DISCUSSION

In this chapter, I discuss the implications of this study through an overview of the eight

counter-terrorism policies, and the support of respondents. I look at nationalism, political

affiliation, and ethnocentrism of respondents, and discuss the findings. I then provide a detailed

discussion of the similarities and differences between male and female respondents. This study

found different degrees of support for counter-terrorism policy between male and female

respondents, and speculation to the mixed results and gender gap is provided.

Public Opinion and Support for Counter-Terrorism Policy

Research on counter-terrorism policies after 9/11 found major public support for

measures that reduced civil liberties and favored punitive action against terrorists (Kam &

Kinder, 2007; Moore, 2002) but research conducted several years after 9/11 demonstrated a shift

in public attitudes (Piazza, 2015; Welch, 2015). Davis and Silver (2004) and Hetherington and

Nelson (2003) found public support for post 9/11 counter-terrorism policies that included

telephone wiretapping, warrantless searches, and e-mail interception; despite respondents’ right

to privacy and due process. Ciuk (2016) and Piazza (2015), found respondents, several years

after 9/11, show less support for counter-terrorism policies that were implemented immediately

after 9/11. Ciuk (2016) states that public support for counter-terrorism measures change over

time. Therefore, from this study’s findings and other contemporary studies such as Ciuk (2016),

one can speculate that the sense of threat declined as distance from 9/11 increased over time. The

public support for counter-terrorism policies is changing as time progresses, where respondents

no longer fear for national security.

50

Policies that meant punitive counter-terrorism measures such as executing terrorists and

stressful interrogation techniques were more supported than warrantless searches and Bill of

Rights protections policy. The support of punitive measures such as the execution of more

terrorists, and the use of stressful interrogation on terrorists supports Welch’s (2015) findings.

The execution of terrorist was the most supported policy on average, which is the same result for

Welch (2015). Respondents were more willing to support counter-terrorism policy when it meant

punitive measures against terrorists.

This study had mixed results, some respondents favored counter-terrorism policies and

some respondents favored civil liberties protections. The counter-terrorism policies with the least

support were policies that reduced civil liberties, such as wiretapping and warrantless searches.

The results of this study support Ciuk (2016) and Piazza (2015) as respondents were found to

offer least support to counter-terrorism policies that infringed their civil liberties, but this finding

is inconsistent with Davis and Silver (2004). Davis and Silver (2004) found that their

respondents were willing to give up some of their civil liberties for more national security.

Perhaps the reason for the different findings is that this study was conducted recently, while

Davis and Silver (2004) did their study relatively close in time to the destruction that happened

on US soil on 9/11 and their respondents might have been emotionally vulnerable. This study

was conducted 15 years after 9/11 and respondents could have developed different emotions

throughout the years. Hetherington and Nelson (2003) found a “rallying effect” phenomenon that

could be best represented during the destruction of the twin towers, perhaps the rallying effect

could wear-off as distance grows from the occurrence; such as public support.

51

Nationalism, Political Affiliation, and Ethnocentrism

Model 3 is the best fit model because of three reasons: (1) model fit statistics (R-square

and adjusted R-square); (2) incremental change in R-square from Model 1 to Model 4; and the

principle of parsimony. In Model 3, political affiliation is the only significant predictor, but

nationalism and ethnocentrism are not. Ethnocentrism was not a significant predictor in any of

the Models. It is important to note that there was a low reliability for the ethnocentrism scale,

which means that the two measures lacked a one-dimensional latent aspect (ethnocentricity). The

low value from Cronbach’s Alpha suggests that both measures used for the ethnocentricity

composite variable did not accurately reflect ethnocentrism. The limitation to the low reliability

can be associated to homogenous ethnic characteristic of respondents who identified themselves

as Mexican American and Hispanic. The sample of respondents was heavily Mexican American,

and respondents might have strong Mexican cultural ties, due to the proximity of the Mexican

border. The cultural Mexican identity, along with the highly populated Hispanic city (Laredo)

might have affected the ethnocentric values from Li and Brewer’s (2004) ethnocentrism

measurement. The ethnocentrism measurement is mostly applied to a national study and not a

subset of community with low ethnic diversity.

My findings support Li and Brewer (2004), where participants demonstrated strong

nationalistic attitudes. Nationalism was found significant only in Model 1, but not significant

when gender and demographic variables were added into subsequent models. The strong

nationalist finding can be attributed to the respondents, who are undergraduate and graduate

students from a South Texas University. The respondents are taught to pledge allegiance to the

United States flag since elementary to the high school level. The respondents, being U.S.

citizens, are taught to demonstrate loyalty to their country. This study was composed primarily of

52

a homogenous population, where all the respondents were Hispanic, and mostly Mexican

American. Respondents might associate themselves with Mexican nationality, creating the Mex-

Tex culture as Thompson (1991) and Mendoza (2011) stated in chapter 1. However, as gender

was added to Model 2, nationalism no longer had an influence, meaning that the gender of

respondents influenced the support for counter-terrorism policy and nationalism no longer

became a significant predictor. Based on the results and regression analysis, female and male

respondents have different responses in regard to the amount of support for counter-terrorism

policy.

Political affiliation was also found significant in Model 1, Model 2 and Model 3.This

study’s findings are consistent with Wemlinger (2014) who found that individuals who are

conservative, either Republican or Libertarian, are more likely to support counter-terrorism

policies than respondents who affiliated themselves with the Democratic or Independent party.

Furthermore, Republicans who were male increased the amount of support for counter-terrorism

policy than male Democrat respondents. The conservativeness of respondents also indicated an

increase of punitiveness for counter-terrorism policies. Respondents who associated themselves

to the Republican party offered the most support for the execution of terrorists, and harsh

interrogation techniques; this finding indicates that the conservatives in regards to political

affiliation is consistent and supports national studies like Hetherington and Nelson (2003) and

Sanchez (2006).Hetherington and Nelson (2003) found that respondents who were most

conservative and associated themselves to Republican party supported the War on Terror, and

were more willing to trade their civil liberties for national security from terrorism. This study

also supports Sanchez (2006), where Hispanics’ public opinion for politics is similar to White

Non-Hispanic. In his study, Sanchez (2006) concluded that Hispanics were as likely to have the

53

same political attitude as White Non-Hispanic. My finding for political affiliation supports

Sanchez (2006) and Hetherington and Nelson (2003).

Politics is a hot topic discussed through news networks and other public media, and

frames the public opinion (Klarevas, 2002; Nelson et al., 1997). This study could have provided

more findings that influenced Hispanic students’ public opinion on counter-terrorism policy, but

public media as an influence for political thought becomes a limitation for this study.

Hetherington and Nelson (2003) state that political affiliation, and political thought are direct

outcomes from public media, such as news networks. A limitation to this study was that

respondents were only asked for their political affiliation, and did not measure any possible

influence from media as Klarevas (2002) and Hetherington and Nelson (2003) found. Asking

respondents’ source of information, or preferred news network could have supplemented a

possible cross tabulation between media and political affiliation.

Gender Gap for Counter-Terrorism Policy

Wemlinger (2014) and Piazza (2015) found a gender gap for the support of counter-

terrorism policies. I also found gender differences in support for counter-terrorism policy over

civil liberties protections. Gender is an important variable and explains 13% of the variance in

Model 2. Female respondents gave less support to punitive counter-terrorism policies, and

counter-terrorism policies that reduced civil liberties than male, thus this finding indicates a

gender gap in support for counter-terrorism policy. The presence of the gender gap is evidenced

by Models 2, 3, and 4, and by Table 8 results. Civil liberties are more important to women than

national security; an explanation to this outcome may be attributed to the civil rights struggle of

women in the United States (Schultz, 2016). Female and male support for the three counter-

terrorism policies that are portrayed in Table 8, demonstrate female respondents with most

54

support for the protection of their civil liberties over national security. The use of warrantless

searches and seizures as a counter-terrorism measure was the least supported by female

respondents, but male respondents were almost equally supportive for national security. Women

have undergone more struggles with civil liberties than men in the United States, and even today,

women are fighting for equal pay in some U.S. states (Schultz, 2016). The lack of support for

national security from female respondents may thus be attributed to the extent of female civil

rights struggle for gender equality.

As previously mentioned in this chapter, and Chapter 1, Laredo has a mixed Mexican-

American culture with relatives living on both sides of the border. Laredo faces problems with

illegal immigration, and Laredo Hispanic women may have experienced problems with family

members from Mexico who illegally enter the US border. The “limited” civil liberties from the

“illegal alien” status of husbands or sons who cross the border to support their family back in

Mexico may have contributed to a deeper understanding of persons’ civil liberties.

The socialization of gender roles can also be an explanation for the different support

between national security and civil liberty protections. The socialization of gender roles is the

showed behavior where females are taught to be more empathetic, and male are taught to be

aggressive and protector of the household (Haider-Markel & Vieux, 2008). Haider-Markel and

Vieux (2008) termed the socialization of female roles as “ethic of care”, where females are

taught to be empathetic over the well-being of other people. The socialization of gender roles is a

possible explanation for the gender gap in support for counter-terrorism policy and the support

for civil liberties protections over national security from terrorism. It is important to note that

male respondents offered mixed support for national security, but also supported the protection

of their civil liberties. The difference of gender response is that female respondents were more

55

consistent with the protection of their civil liberties, but male respondents did not demonstrate

that same support consistency as female respondents. This finding supports Piazza (2015) and

Wemlinger (2014), who have found less female support for counter-terrorism policy than male.

The mixed results from the four Models, and gender difference in response to the eight

counter-terrorism policies can also be explained by the group of participants that were surveyed.

Respondents were all Hispanic, from a South Texas border city to Mexico. Illegal immigration

is one of the many legal occurrences in Laredo, and even though respondents are U.S. citizens,

they may be associated to family members who have undergone civil struggles or human rights

hardships from their illegal immigration status. The lack of support for national security over

civil liberties is applied to the location of the group of respondents and their familiarity with

what it means to hold civil liberties.

Future Directions

The findings from this study suggest more research on the gender gap and the public

support for counter-terrorism policies. Future research should explore whether Hispanics in other

cities across the US favor national security over civil liberties; taking into account gender and

political affiliation of respondents. Researchers should conduct further studies to see if other

Hispanic communities from the United States share the same support for counter-terrorism

policies as my study, and whether they represent a majority of Democrats with high nationalism.

Due to this study’s limitation to understand public media framing of political affiliation and

support for counter-terrorism policy, future research should implement a measure for

respondents’ preferred source of information. In light of the significance and contribution of

ethnocentrism as a measure, future research should consider only applying ethnocentricity to

national studies. Future research should also consider the gender gap in support for counter-

56

terrorism policy. Recent literature has found less support for counter-terrorism policies, thus

future research should study respondents’ reasons for the amount of counter-terrorism support

(Ciuk, 2016; Piazza, 2015); whether it is emotions, ethnicity, or any particular social aspect

associated to the group of respondents.

Conclusion

The Hispanic respondents showed mixed support for counter-terrorism measures which

limit civil liberties. Hispanics students are willing to support counter-terrorism measures which

focus on the “terrorists”, such as executing them or using harsh interrogation techniques to get

confessions. Hispanics are willing to support civil liberties when it focuses on their own Bill of

rights protections, such as limits on searches without warrant or phone wiretapping. Among

nationalism, ethnocentrism, and political affiliation, political affiliation is a strong factor

impacting support for counter-terrorism policy. Those who hold conservative opinions are more

likely to support counter-terrorism policy. The conservativeness of Hispanic students was also a

significant predictor for the support of national security over civil liberties, respondents who

were associated to the Republican party supported national security over civil liberties. This

study found that Hispanic students’ public support for counter-terrorism policies was dependent

upon their conservativeness or political affiliation, and their respective gender.

This study also found a gender gap for the public support of counter-terrorism policies

where Hispanic female students chose civil liberties over counter-terrorism policies and male

Hispanic students’ public support was distributed between national security and civil liberties.

While the literature I provide about the gender gap for public opinion on counter-terrorism

mentions a moderating effect of gender, my study found a main effect of gender. Even though

there was no interaction effect of gender on nationalism, ethnocentrism, and political affiliation,

57

gender was significant as a main effect; meaning gender influenced the amount of support for

counter-terrorism policy. Males are more likely to support counter-terrorism measures than

females, including punitive measures such as the execution of terrorists and harsh interrogation

techniques to get confessions from terrorists. The Hispanic students from this study demonstrate

that national security is an important function for the protection from terrorism, but the

infringement of their civil liberties also goes against their nationalistic values.

58

REFERENCES

Abrajano, M.A., Alvarez, R.M., and Nagler, J. (2008). The Hispanic vote in the 2004

presidential election: Insecurity and moral concerns. The Journal of Politics, 70(2). 368-

382.

Albrecht, A.C.M. (2015). Armed drones in the global war on terrorism: A quantitative analysis

of attitude change among Truman state university students. The McNair Scholarly

Review, 21.1-17.

“Campaign exposes fissures over issues, values and how life has changed in the U.S. 2016” Pew Research

Center, Washington, D.C. (March 31, 2016).http://www.people-press.org/2016/03/31/campaign-

exposes-fissures-over-issues-values-and-how-life-has-changed-in-the-u-s/#

Blais, A., Gidengil, E., Nadeau, R., and Nevitte, N. (2001). Measuring party identification:

Britain, Canada, and the United States. Political Behavior, 23(1). 5-22.

Bobo, L. (2000). Race and beliefs about affirmative action: Assessing the effects of interests,

group threat, ideology, and racism. In racialized politics: The debate about racism in

America, ed. Chicago, IL: Univ. Chicago Press.

City of Laredo. (2016). Retrieved from http://www.cityoflaredo.com/index.html.

Ciuk, D.J. (2016). Americans' value preferences, pre- and post-9/11. Social Science Quarterly 97

(2). 407-417.

Davis, D.W., and Silver, B.D. (2004). Civil liberties vs. security: Public opinion in the context of

the terrorist attacks on American. American Journal of Political Science, 48(1). 28-46.

De la Garza, R.O., Falcon, A., and Garcia, F.C. (1996). Will the real Americans please stand up:

Anglo and Mexican-American support of core American political values. American

Journal of Political Science. 335-351.

59

Domke, D., Graham, E.S., Coe, G., John, S.L, and Coopman, T. (2006).Going public as political

strategy: The Bush Administration, an echoing press, and passage of the Patriot Act.

Political Communication, 23(3). 291-312.

Ennis, S.R., Rios-Vargas, M., and Albert, N.G. (2011). The Hispanic population: 2010.

Retrieved from http://www.census.gov/prod/cen2010/briefs/c2010br-04.pdf

Field, A. (2013). Discovering statistics using IBM SPSS Statistics (4th ed.). London: SAGE

Publications.

Gilmer, R.W., Gurch, M., and Wang, T. (2001). Texas border cities: An income growth

perspective. Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas. 2-5.

Gonzalez-Barrera, A. and Lopez, M.G. (2013). A demographic portrait of Mexican-origin

Hispanics in the United States. Retrieved from

http://www.pewhispanic.org/2013/05/01/a-demographic-portrait-of-mexican-origin-

hispanics-in-the-united-states/

Gorham-Oscilowski, U., and Jaeger, P.T. (2008). National security letters, the USA Patriot Act,

and the constitution: The tensions between national security and civil rights. Government

Information Quarterly, 25.625-644.

Gronke, P., Rejali, D., Drenguis, D., Hicks, J., Miller, P., and Nakayama, B. (2010). US public

opinion on torture, 2001-2009. PS: political science & politics, 43(3). 437-444.

Haider-Markel, D.P., and Vieux, A. (2008). Gender and conditional support for torture in the war

on terror. Politics and Gender, 2.5-33.

Hetherington, M.J, and Suhay, E. (2011). Authoritarianism, threat, and Americans’ support for

the war on terror. American Journal of Political Science, 55(3). 546-560.

60

Hetherington, M.T., and Nelson, M. (2003). Anatomy of a rally effect: George W. Bush and the

war on terrorism. American Political Science Association, 36(1).37-42.

Holsti, K.J. (1996). The state, war, and the state of war. Cambridge: Cambridge University

Press.

Holsti, O.R. (2004). Public opinion and American foreign policy. Rev. Ed. Ann Arbor, MI:

University of Michigan Press.

Hurwitz, J., and Peffley, M. (1987). The means and ends of foreign policy as determinants of

presidential support. American Journal of Political Science. 236-258.

Johnson, K.R. (2005). The forgotten repatriation of persons of Mexican ancestry and lessons for

the war on terror. Pace Law Review, 26.1-26.

Kam, C.D., and Kinder, D.R. (2007). Terror and ethnocentrism: Foundations of American

support for the war on terrorism. Journal of Politics, 69(2). 320-338.

Kar, B., Crowsey, R.C., and Zale, J.J. (2013). The myth of location privacy in the United States:

Surveyed attitude versus current practices. The Professional Geographer, 65. 47-64.

Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347 (1967).

Kaufmann, K.M. (2006). The gender gap.PS: Political Science and Politics, 39. 447-453.

Kaufmann, K.M. and Petrocik, J.R. (1999). The changing politics of American men:

Understanding the sources of the gender gap. American Journal of Political Science,

43.864-887.

Klarevas, L. (2002). The “essential domino” of military operations: American public opinion and

the use of force. International Studies Perspectives, 3, 417-437.

Kosterman, R., and Feshbach, S. (1989). Toward a measure of patriotic and nationalistic

attitudes. Political Psychology. 257-274.

61

Krysan, M. (2000). Prejudice, politics, and public opinion: Understanding the sources of racial

policy attitudes. Annual Review of Sociology. 135-168.

Lerner, J.S., Gonzalez, R.M., Small, D.A., and Fischhoff, B. (2003). Effects of fear and anger on

perceived risks of terrorism a national field experiment. Psychological science, 14(2).

144-150.

Marcus, G., Sullivan, J.L., Theiss-Morse, E., and Wood, S. (1995). With malice towards some.

Matz, C. (2008). Libraries and the USA Patriot Act: Values in conflict. Journal of Library

Administration, 47(3). 69-87.

McCauley, J.F. (2014). The political mobilization of ethnic and religious identities in Africa.

American Political Science Review, 108(4). 801-816.

Mendoza, A. (2011). “For our own best interests”: Nineteenth-century Laredo Tejanos, Military

service, and the development of American nationalism. Southwestern Historical

Quarterly, 115(2). 125-152.

Moore, K. (2002). A part of US or apart from US?: Post-September 11 attitudes toward Muslims

and civil liberties. Middle East Research and Information Project, Inc., 224.32-35.

NBC News. (2016). “SurveyMonkey weekly election tracking poll”. NBC News, New York,

NY. (February 2, 2016).

http://big.assets.huffingtonpost.com/NBCNewsSurveyMonkey020216.pdf.

Nelson, T.E., Clawson, R.A., and Oxley, Z.M. (1997).Media framing of a civil liberties conflict

and its effect on tolerance. American Political Science Review, 91(3). 567-683

Neuliep, J.W., and McCroskey, J.C. (1997). The development of a US and generalized

ethnocentrism scale. Communication Research Reports, 14(4). 385-398.

62

Papacharissi, Z., and de Fatima Oliveira, M. (2008). News frames terrorism: A comparative

analysis of frames employed in terrorism coverage in US and UK newspapers. The

International Journal of Press/Politics, 13(1). 52-74.

Piazza, J.A. (2015). Terrorist suspect religious identity and public support for harsh interrogation

and detention practices. Political Psychology, 36(6). 667-690.

Pinon, F. (1985).Patron democracy. Distrito Federal, MX: Ediciones Contraste.

Sanchez, G. (2006). The role of group consciousness in Latino public opinion. Political

Research Quarterly, 59(3).435-446.

Schultz, D. L. (2016). Disrupting the dream: Teaching civil rights history at a twenty-first

century community college. In Civic Engagement Pedagogy in the Community college:

Theory and Practice (pp.33-52). Springer International Publishing.

Singer, J. (1958). Threat-perception and the armament-tension dilemma. The Journal of Conflict

resolution, 2(1). 90-105.

Sperling, B. (2014). Laredo, Texas voting. Retrieved from

http://www.bestplaces.net/voting/city/texas/laredo

Stevens, J.P. (2002). Applied multivariate statistics for the social sciences (4th ed.). Hillsdale, NJ:

Erlbaum.

Thompson, J.D. (1991). Warm weather & bad whiskey: The 1886 Laredo election riot. El Paso,

TX: Texas Western Press.

U.S. Census Bureau. (2014). United States QuickFacts. Retrieved April 12, 2016, from

http://www.census.gov/quickfacts/table/PST045215/4841464,00

U.S. v. Karo, 468 U.S. 705 (1984).

63

Walker, J.T., and Maddan, S. (2013). Statistics in criminology and criminal justice: Analysis and

interpretation. Burlington, MA: Jones & Bartlett Learning.

Welch, K. (2015). Middle Eastern terrorist stereotypes and anti-terror policy support: The effect

of perceived minority threat. Race and Justice. 1-29.

Wemlinger, E. (2014). The gender gap and torture: Opposition to torture among men and women

in the USA. The Social Science Journal, 51. 113-119.

Whitehead, J.W., and Aden, S.H. (2002). Forfeiting “enduring freedom” for “homeland

security”: A constitutional analysis of the USA Patriot Act and the Justice department’s

anti-terrorism initiatives. American University Law Review, 51(6). 1081-1133.

Wood, R.D. (2004). Life in Laredo: A documentary history from the Laredo archives. Denton,

TX: University of North Texas Press.

Zaller, J.R. (1992). The nature and origins of mass opinion. New York, NY: Cambridge

University Press.

64

APPENDIX A

SURVEY

Civil Liberties V. Securities: A Study of Hispanic Voters’ Public Opinion

PROMPT: Many citizens are concerned about specific counter-terrorism measures that

came “after” the destruction of the World Trade Center, for what came to be known as the War

on Terror. Please tell me how you feel about the following statements?

Please respond to the following questions using an index of 0 to 10, with 0 being "No Support"

and 10 being "Strong Support" with the statement.

Holding prisoners indefinitely without being charged for an offense.

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Detaining terrorist suspects without notifying their families or embassies.

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Using stressful interrogation techniques to get confessions.

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Holding trials that do not involve Bill of Rights protections.

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Executing more terrorists.

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Wiretapping phones in the United States.

65

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Intercepting emails and other personal electronic information.

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Conducting searches and seizures of individuals and their belongings without proper

warrants.

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

3. In politics today, do you consider yourself a Republican, Democrat, Independent, Libertarian

or none?

o Republican

o Democrat

o Independent

o Libertarian

o None of the Above

4. From the list below, please tell me which 2016 Presidential candidate, if any, you would most

likely vote for?

o Bernie Sanders

o Donald Trump

o Hillary Clinton

o John Kasich

o Ted Cruz

o None of the Above

66

5. What is your Gender?

o Female

o Male

6. What is your Age?

7. What is your Race, or Ethnicity?

o White, Non-Hispanic

o Hispanic, Latino/a

o Black, or African American

o American Indian, Native American, Hawaiian or Pacific Islander

o Asian

o None of the Above

8. What is your annual Household Income?

o $0 to $49,999

o $50,000 and Over

9. What is your highest Education Level?

o No High School Degree

o High School Degree or GED

o Some College

o Bachelor’s Degree

o More than a Bachelor’s Degree

10. If Hispanic, how do you primarily define your national heritage or origin?

67

o Mexican

o Other Hispanic

11. Please respond to the following questions using a scale of 1 to 5, with 1 being Strongly Agree

and 5 being Strongly Disagree with the statement.

If you feel that you do not have sufficient knowledge on the topic to offer an opinion,

please answer, Not Sure.

The first duty of every young American is to honor the national American history.

Strongly Agree Agree Not Sure Disagree Strongly Disagree

People should support their country even if the country is in the wrong.

Strongly Agree Agree Not Sure Disagree Strongly Disagree

The fact that I am an American is an important part of my identity.

Strongly Agree Agree Not Sure Disagree Strongly Disagree

It is better for the country if different racial and ethnic groups adapt and blend into the

larger society.

Strongly Agree Agree Not Sure Disagree Strongly Disagree

We should be more tolerant of people who choose to live according to their own

standards, even if they are very different from our own.

Strongly Agree Agree Not Sure Disagree Strongly Disagree

END OF SURVEY

68

APPENDIX B

VITA

CARLOS ALVAREZ

134 G. Mangana Hein Rd. Laredo, Tx 78046 ∙ carlosalvarez@dusty.tamiu.edu

EDUCATION

Associate of Science (2012)

Laredo Community College, Laredo, TX

G.P.A: 3.5

Bachelor of Science in Criminal Justice (2014)

Texas A&M International University, Laredo, TX

Magna Cum Laude

G.P.A: 3.85

Master of Science in Criminal Justice (2016)

Texas A&M International University, Laredo, TX

Thesis Concentration: National Security Policy and Public Opinion/Support

G.P.A: 3.625

CERTIFICATIONS

Certificate of Advanced Spanish and Costa Rican Culture

Universidad Nacional de Costa Rica, Heredia, Costa Rica

*International Student Exchange Program– Costa Rica

Texas Public Notary

American Association of Notaries

Commission Expires: 02/19/2015 – 02/19/2019

Master’s and Doctoral Level Certificate/Recognizing Plagiarism

Indiana University Bloomington

Certificate ID: 6584960458686464

External Reviewer ~ Research Methods of Social Sciences Texas A&M International University

7th day of May 2015

SCHOLARSHIP AWARDS, AND UNIVERSITY GRANTS

• Distinguished Budgetary Statement, Secretariat for Administration and Finance

• Hispanic Scholarship Fund/ Coca-Cola Foundation and South Texas Agency $4,000

• D.D. Hachar Charitable Trust Fund Scholarship/ $1,500

• Guadalupe and Lilia Scholarship (Study Abroad) /$1,750

• Dean’s Conference Grant/ Alpha Phi Sigma $2,100

• Dean’s Conference Grant/ Pi Sigma Alpha $1,336

• High Honors Magna Cum Laude, Bachelors of Science.

• Certificado de Español Avanzado y Cultura Costarricense/ Universidad Nacional de Costa Rica

• Honor Roll (2012-2013)

• Dean’s List (2013-2014)

69

HONOR SOCIETIES AND ASSOCIATIONS

• Alpha Phi Sigma National Criminal Justice Honor Society/ President

• Alpha Kappa Delta International Sociology Honor Society

• Phi Kappa Phi All-Discipline Honor Society

• Pi Sigma Alpha Political Science Honor Society/ Treasurer and Communications Officer

• Student Government Association President’s Council/ Presidential Delegate

• Ancient Free and Accepted Freemasons/ Laredo Masonic Lodge #547

• American Association of Notaries/ Texas Public Notary

PROFESSIONAL SKILLS

Texas Highway Patrol "Cadet", Texas Department of Public Safety September 2016 - Present

Texas Department of Public Safety, Austin, TX

• The Texas Department of Public Safety (DPS) is the premier law enforcement agency in the state, as well as

one of the finest in the nation. To meet the many challenges facing law enforcement today, the Department

operates a world-class training program.

• The Law Enforcement Education training program administers a rigorous 23-week recruit school that is both

physically and mentally demanding.

• The Texas Department of Public Safety offers Tactical Training with advanced weaponry; including M4

Carbine, Sig Sauer P30, Remington 870 Pump Action Shotgun and Mossberg 590A1 Shotgun. DPS Education,

Training and Research opened a modern Firearm's Range in Florence, Texas, on June 1, 2003. This training

facility, located on approximately 44 acres, includes a 60-point range, rifle range, shotgun range, tactical shoot

house and tactical range. The tactical staff also trains students in the complexities of simulated "life" scenarios,

including vehicle pursuit maneuvers.

Graduate Research-Teaching Assistant, Dept. of Social Sciences September 2014 - May 2016

Texas A&M International University, Laredo, TX

• Conducted Social Research to assist Director of Criminal Justice Dr. Frailing and Department Chair Dr. Claudia

San Miguel.

• Updated existing faculty publications by visiting accredited Journal Sites.

• Proctored and teach-assisted Criminological Theory to Undergraduate Students, and delivered comprehensive

exams to students.

• Completed IRB forms for Texas A&M International University to survey Graduate students.

Language Arts Mentor, Learning Enrichment Center January 2012– September 2014

Laredo Community College, Laredo, TX

• Mentored freshman and sophomore students in English and Spanish Subject areas.

• Collaborated with Language Arts Tutor Coordinator in developing writing skills for struggling undergraduate

students.

• Participated in Employee emergency training.

Teacher Assistant, Camilo Prada Child Development Center June-December 2011

Laredo Community College, Laredo, TX

• Engaged in the developmental process of children.

• Participated in child care training.

• Welcomed parents of children and filed registration documents.

Chapter President, National Criminal Justice Honor Society November 2012 – December 2015

Texas A&M International University, Laredo, TX.

• Conduct Social Research to present at the annual Conference of Academy of Criminal Justice Sciences.

• Participated as a founder of a new chapter.

• Collaborated with University Staff to develop formal meetings.

• Developed organization’s budget and Tax-exemption forms. Furthermore, primary author for Dean’s

Conference Grant to Orlando, Florida ($2,100).

• Collaborated with Professional Advisors to maintain members engaged with community service.

70

Chapter Treasurer, National Political Science Honor Society. September 2015 – August 2016

Texas A&M International University, Laredo, TX.

• Conducted Social Research to present at the annual Eugene Scassa Mock Organization of American States at

Lafayette, Louisiana. Served as main delegate for Secretariat of Administration and Finance (SAF) Committee;

prepared and debated committee’s Budgetary Statement. Furthermore, primary author for Dean’s conference

grant to Lafayette, Louisiana ($1,336).

• As Treasurer, main duties included maintaining records of expenditures and finances.

• Developed organization’s budget and Tax-exemption forms.

• Collaborated with Professional Advisors to maintain members engaged with research opportunities.

NATIONAL CONFERENCE PRESENTATIONS

Alvarez, C., Medina, M., & Frailing, K. “Criminal Justice Graduate Student Experience in an Online

Setting”, Academy of Criminal Justice Sciences Conference. Orlando, FL, March 2015.

Alvarez, C., Medina, M., & Frailing, K. “Criminal Justice Graduate Student Experience in an Online

Setting”, Pathways Student Research Symposium. Corpus Christi, TX, October 2015.

Alvarez, C. "Secretariat for Administration and Finance"", Eugene Scassa Mock Organization of American

States. Lafayette, LA, November 2015.

REFERENCES

• Dr. Kelly Frailing, Dept. of Public Affairs and Social Research, kelly.frailing@tamiu.edu,

(956) 326-2662

• Dr. Marcus Antonius Ynalvez, Dept. of Public Affairs and Social Research, mynalvez@tamiu.edu, (956) 326-

2621

BIOGRAPHICAL INFORMATION

Carlos Alvarez was born October 15, 1991 in Laredo, Texas. He worked as a graduate research

assistant for the Department of Social Sciences at Texas A&M International University (TAMIU). Mr.

Alvarez was the co-founder and president of the National Criminal Justice Honor Society at TAMIU, and

is a proud alumnus for the International Sociology Honor Society and Phi Kappa Phi Honor Society. He

has presented academic research at the Academy of Criminal Justice Sciences, TAMU Pathways, and

served as a delegate for Eugene Scassa Mock Organization of the American States. He is part of Laredo

Lodge 547, where he was raised to the sublime degree of a Master Mason (Ancient, Free, and Accepted

Masons). Mr. Alvarez starting working for the Texas Department of Public Safety on September 2016 as

a Texas State Trooper (Cadet). He continues to work on academia, while protecting and serving the Lone

Star State as a Texas Peace Officer.